Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Unemployment

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress following the publication of the January unemployment figures; and what replies he has sent.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): None, Sir. But, as the hon. Member will be aware, the Scottish Trades Union Congress earlier this week had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at which I was present.

Mr. Sillars: At that meeting, did the Secretary of State confess to the Scottish Trades Union Congress delegation that his designation of a large part of Scotland as a special development area amounts to a clear admission that his own investment allowances system is a failure?

Mr. Campbell: No. Sir. This S.D.A. designation happened to be a recommendation put to the Government by the S.T.U.C. itself earlier. At the meeting at No. 10 on Monday, there was a full discussion, and I had the impression that the S.T.U.C. considered it extremely useful.

Mr. MacArthur: Did my right hon. Friend point out to the delegation that the industrial future of Scotland depends on the defeat of cost inflation and, thereafter, on the resumption of growth in the total United Kingdom economy?

Mr. Campbell: It would be right to say that there was general agreement on that.

Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind the gravity of the unemployment figures in Scotland, and whatever the merit of the S.D.A. proposals, since they can have little or no effect this year and very little next year, if the Prime Minister's figures given yesterday are correct, has the Secretary of State any plans for immediate action to alleviate the situation during the coming months

Mr. Campbell: In July, when I first met the S.T.U.C., we were aware that unemployment was standing at over 90,000 then, at the height of the summer. I have seen the S.T.U.C. since then, and we have kept in touch about the matter. The S.D.A. was the quickest method to be brought in because, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but in accordance with what I said on 3rd February, legislation was not required and it could be designated straight away. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman did not know."] I replied at the time —this was in my first speech—but hon. Members did not take it in, that I had been advised that legislation was not necessary to designate it. The point is that legislation is still necessary to raise the grants to the amounts which have already been announced.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State now answer my question?

Mr. Campbell: I have already stated that the S.D.A. system was a method which was to hand and was the quickest to introduce in order to deal with the situation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that already, in order immediately and urgently to relieve as much as we can of the unemployment which we found on coming into office, we have introduced, for Scotland only, the winter works programme,

Rural Areas

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official tour of the rural areas of Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As my home and constituency are in the North of Scotland, I frequently travel by different routes through much of rural Scotland.

Mr. William Hamilton: Keep travelling.

Mr. Campbell: I do. I shall continue also to make visits to particular areas as part of my programme.

Mr. Sillars: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the staggering number of withdrawal notices on rural bus services in Scotland at present? Am I to take it from Written Answers which I have received in the last week or two that, instead of doing anything to save these services in the meantime, the Secretary of State has chosen to shelter behind two pilot studies, in Devon and West Suffolk, set up by an English Minister?

Mr. Campbell: No, Sir; I am not sheltering behind anything. This serious matter is receiving the Government's urgent attention. I travel by bus a lot in the North of Scotland, apart from using other forms of travel, and I am aware of the usefulness of the rural bus services.

Hunterston (Harbour Development)

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations have taken place between his Department, the Clyde Port Authority and other interested parties about the construction of ocean terminals at Hunterston.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend's officials keep in close touch with the Clyde Port Authority and other bodies concerned with port development on the Clyde.

Mr. Lambie: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is his job to see that a lead is given to the Clyde Port Authority and the British Steel Corporation, and that there is a tremendous feeling in Scotland that if this great national asset of deep water in the Clyde had been an English channel we should have had a decision years ago?

Mr. Younger: This is a matter between the Clyde Port Authority and the British Steel Corporation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that negotiations are going on between those two bodies as to how they can forward this project. I think that a decision is not very far off.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Is it true that there may be another inquiry at Hunters-

ton? If so, may we be assured that it will not be of the same marathon length as the last inquiry at Hunterston? Are the Government being consulted about the projected agreement between the British Steel Corporation and the Clyde Port Authority on the construction of an ore terminal port?

Mr. Younger: I certainly hope that any new inquiry would not be as long as the first. My right hon. Friend has just circulated the additional evidence on the demand for home refining capacity and so on, which he promised to do. It is too early to say whether there will be objections that will need a further inquiry. If there were to be such an inquiry it would probably take place some time in May. This is a matter between the British Steel Corporation and the Clyde Port Authority, and the Secretary of State's interest, apart from his general economic interest in Scottish affairs, is a planning interest, and he will be ready to step in as soon as he is needed.

Mr. Lawson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about three months since his right hon. Friend gave the all-clear for this to proceed? What has his Department been doing and what is it doing, to get rid of the difficulties which seem to have cropped up? What precisely are those difficulties?

Mr. Younger: It is not a question of difficulties. Negotiations are going on in the perfectly normal way between the two bodies concerned. I can at least assure the hon. Gentleman that no time is being lost and that technical investigations and site borings are proceeding to ensure that no further time will be lost when the decision is reached.

Housing (Glasgow)

Mr. William Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many approvals were granted in respect of houses to be built by Glasgow local authority in each of the years 1968 to 1970.

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the final figure for houses completed in 1970 in the city of Glasgow.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was


the total number of housing starts, by all sources, in Glasgow in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970.

Mr. Younger: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 4, 19 and 22 together and circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hannan: That reply is an abuse of the procedure of Question Time. But sometimes we happen to know the answers before we ask the Questions, so may I ask the hon. Gentleman this: in view of the declining number of approvals, does he agree that the declining number of approvals automatically means a decline in the number of houses constructed? Do not the figures show a wanton, criminal neglect of its statutory duty by the strife-torn, right-wing alliance in Glasgow? What action does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to encourage it, or better still, to abandon it to its inevitable defeat at the forthcoming elections?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is putting Questions to which he already knows the answers. I agree with him, of course, that if approvals decline, as they have in Scotland as a whole over the past three years, completions will naturally be likely to decline also. But I cannot agree that the trend in Glasgow is one to be regretted. The Corporation is to be greatly congratulated on at least having looked at the planning standards of housing for the people of Glasgow so that they can have better homes.

Mr. Small: I received nearly a cultural shock from that answer, because my question relates to the City of Glasgow and I think that it will be crystal clear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use an opportunity to ask a supplementary question to transmit his cultural shocks to me. He must ask a question.

Mr. Small: Does the figure in Glasgow show so alarming a drop that the Minister is afraid to give us the figures today?

Mr. Younger: Not at all. Cultural shocks are a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who deals with these things. As to the figures, it is not the question of completions in the past

years that is relevant. In the past 12 months Glasgow Corporation has rehoused more people in the city than ever before in its history.

Dr. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All that the hon. Gentleman was asked for was four small sets of figures, which he could easily have told us. Is it a new departure that when it becomes a bit difficult for the Government, they hide behind the cloak of putting figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT? As backbenchers we should like your guidance on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. First, I deprecate points of order during Question time because they shorten the time available. Second, I have no responsibility for the nature of the Minister's answer. That is his responsibility, not mine.

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister stop hiding behind the figure of house letting which he has quoted? This is the second time that he has quoted it, and it shows an abysmal ignorance of the true facts of Glasgow's housing problem if he thinks that that is a substitute for new houses.

Mr. Younger: The point made by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) is without substance, because it was not merely four figures for which I was asked but a veritable table, and it would be an abuse of the time of the House to read it out. The point about the housing programme in Glasgow is that the people of Glasgow are no longer prepared to tolerate any house at any price built anywhere. They want a higher-standard housing, and that is what they will get.

Mr. Ross: The Minister got us into this difficulty because he decided with permission—and I do not remember giving permission—to answer three Questions together. The answer to the first should consist of three figures. Will he give us them? The answer to the second, Question No. 19, consists of one figure. Will he give us that?

Mr. Younger: I was asking the permission not of the right hon. Gentleman but of the House, which is not the same thing. Second, there is a whole table of figures in the reply. The right hon. Gentleman can have any of them that he wants at any time, but it is a question


of the approval of the House, which was given.

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the information:




Glasgow Corporation only:
All agencies:




Approved
Started
Completed


1968
…
1,428
3,496
4,651


1969
…
4,199
1,551
4,787


1970
…
2,632
3,272
3,051

House Purchase

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will implement Recommendation No. 5 contained in the Report on the Construction Industry in Scotland, prepared by the Scottish Council, Development and Industry, with regard to the purchase of new houses in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is bearing it in mind in considering possible ways of encouraging owner-occupation.

Mr. Gray: I am very glad to hear that my right hon. Friend is considering that, because the difference between the mortgage limit and the purchase price of a house is too great a burden for many people, particularly as they also have to face expenditure on furnishing. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter very urgently?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. It is because of the considerations he outlined, among others, that we are considering in our present review of housing finance all the possible ways of helping people who wish to go in for home ownership.

Scottish Inshore Fishing Industry

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he is taking to protect the Scottish Inshore Fishing Industry in Common Market negotiations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): As the House has been informed, Her Majesty's Government have reserved our position on fisheries and made representations about the fisheries policy adopted by the Six.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he also bear in mind that many of the recommendations of the Cameron Report are almost as bad for inshore fishermen as the prospect of joining the Common Market? Will he give an assurance that before any legislation is introduced he will seriously consider the industry's views on the fishing limits?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am conscious of the concern felt about some of the proposals in the Cameron Report. My right hon. Friend and I are in the process of consulting the interests involved. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall not come to any conclusions until those consultations are completed.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister go a little further on the Cameron Report? While I do not ask him now to repudiate the whole Report, will he make it quite clear that the Government are not bound by the recommendations about the limits, otherwise these may have a serious effect upon our negotiations? Will he see that it is made clear in Brussels that the throwing open of the Scottish fishing waters to indiscriminate fishing of all kinds would not only be disastrous for the Scottish industry but would be extremely harmful to the whole European industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Of course, the Government are not prejudging the Cameron Committee proposals. It would make a mockery of the consultations if we did not study them before coming to a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, in the Brussels negotiations, we shall do everything possible to ensure that the interests of the Scottish inshore fishing industry are properly represented.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: In the unlikely event of the United Kingdom joining the E.E.C., are the Government undertaking any studies to see whether there are any alternative ways of providing employment for the large numbers of fishing communities up and down our coastline which depend on fishing and nothing else?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am much more concerned at the moment to ensure that we conduct the negotiations properly, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Government follow the example of the Norwegian Government and oppose the entry of Scotland into the E.E.C. unless and until the E.E.C. abandons its fisheries policy?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What the Norwegian Government do is a matter for the Norwegians. We shall negotiate in the way which we believe is in the best interests of our inshore fishermen and in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Maclennan: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that both the Cameron Report and the Community policy on free access raise two problems—the one on conservation and the other on the regional impact? Is he aware that this is a peculiarly Scottish difficulty? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Scottish problems are being properly represented at Brussels?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I have said on many occasions, we are fully aware of the problems which arise from both those issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not so naïve as to think that, in important negotiations like this, the United Kingdom should declare its position in advance.

Home Helps

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he is prepared to give to local authorities to enable them to recruit more home helps to look after chronically sick and disabled people under the 1970 Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): This Act does not affect the provision of home helps in Scotland. My right hon. Friend has decided to bring into operation on 1st April Section 14 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968, which places a duty on local authorities to provide home help for those who need it, including the disabled. Provision has been made for the development of this service in the Rate Support Grant Order for 1971.

Mr. McElhone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern among Scottish local authorities about the shortage of financial assistance from the Government to provide more home helps? Is he further aware that, under the Social Work (Scotland) Act, he is obliged to provide more home helps for people who are in need?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have noted from the report on the Rate Support Grant Order that the local authorities' current expenditure on social work services is expected to rise from £21 million in 1969–70 to over £26 million in 1972–73. This increase of 25 per cent. will enable the authorities, among other things, to expand the home help service.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the requirements of Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, are being or will be met in respect of the severely disabled in Scotland? With regard to Section 1 of the Act, does he agree that there will be little point in finding out the number of severely disabled persons unless we know who they are and where they live?

Mr. Taylor: The situation in Scotland is rather different from that of England. The Sections of the Act to which the hon. Gentleman has referred do not apply to Scotland. We have our own Social Work Act, which covers similar circumstances.

Passenger Transport Authority, Glasgow

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state his present intentions with regard to a passenger transport authority in the Greater Glasgow area.

Mr. Younger: It remains my right hon. Friend's intention to discuss this issue with the local authorities concerned when he has completed his examination of all the factors involved.

Mr. McElhone: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if Glasgow's overspill programme and the special development area programme are to be successful, it is essential to improve the transport situation in the Greater Glasgow area?

Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point, but he will appreciate that, following the publication of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study, there was a need for some follow-up studies to be done. These are coming to hand now. In addition, this matter cannot but be bound up with the decisions announced recently in the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government had to ask for follow-up studies. Has he made any assessment of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study in a more general form? Will he impress upon the Secretary of State for the Environment the importance to the Clyde Valley area of the "blue train" commuter service and the importance of Section 39 of the Transport Act being continued at least until there is a complete reorganisation of local government in Scotland and a passenger transport authority is set up?

Mr. Younger: I agree that the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study is a valuable and useful document. That is why the follow-up studies were necessary before reaching final conclusions. I agree about the importance of the "blue train" service.

Double Glazing

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to local authorities, new town development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, about the need for double-glazing, to prevent heat-loss in houses intended for the occupation of old people.

Mr. Younger: Advice on the design of houses for old people, including heating, was given in Bulletin No. 3 of the new Scottish Housing Handbook, copies of which were sent last July to local authorities, new town corporations, and the Scottish Special Housing Association.

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman has not said to what extent that included advice specifically to the new town corporations on double-glazing in houses for old people. Is he aware of the increasing importance attached to double-glazing in the prevention of hypothermia

among old people? Is he aware that, in East Kilbride, we have the rather odd situation in which the new town corporation is not providing double-glazing, even in houses for old people, whereas the town council provides it in its own houses?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Lady's interest and agree with her about the value of double-glazing. I think that the more valuable thing to do, however, is to insist on appropriate minimum heating standards and not necessarily to specify double-glazing as against other forms of heat insulation. But I take the point. We will seek to see that all local authorities, including the new town corporations, maintain the minimum adequate heating standards.

Mr. David Steels: Declaring a possible financial interest, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he accepts that there is a strong case not only for double-glazing in the construction of new houses for old people but for the conversion of existing old people's houses to double-glazing?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that, but the important point is to get minimum heating standards accepted, and double-glazing may or may not be the best way to achieve that in different circumstances.

Mr. Dempsey: Before the construction of such houses, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the plans are sent to the fire prevention authorities so that every, step that can be taken will be taken to avoid fires, in view of the tragic number of fatalities which are occurring because of fires in council housing?

Mr. Younger: We are very concerned with the views of the fire authorities and will do all that we can to see that the fire regulations are observed in the planning and construction of new houses.

New Town Development, Stonehouse

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reach a decision about the proposed new town development at Stonehouse.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Shortly.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all that we have been told so far is that there will be a lot of extra houses at Stonehouse but that we have been given no numbers and still do not know whether he has specifically put it to the East Kilbride Development Corporation that it should be the agency to build houses? Is he aware that, in these circumstances, his reply is totally unsatisfactory and that it is too much that all this procrastination should take place because, apparently, he cannot make up his mind about the fundamental issues involved?

Mr. Campbell: I am sorry to think that the right hon. Lady should appear to be opposed to a proposal of this kind. It is under consideration, as I announced on 3rd February. I am aware that the last Government made an announcement in January, 1969, which has led to the development plan being amended. My estimate of the scheme which we now envisage is that it will be about five times larger.

Housing Capital Debt

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the housing capital debt per head of the population of the joint burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw and of each of the 10 largest local authorities in Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these very large debts have been built up by the local authorities in following the housing programmes of successive Governments? Will he give an assurance that the Government have no intention of welshing upon their debt obligations, which they themselves have undertaken to meet?

Mr. Younger: I am not quite certain to which aspect of the housing finance system the hon. Gentleman is referring. The question of the housing debts incurred by the present local authorities is something that we shall take into account—and, indeed, we are doing so—in our current consultations with the local authority associations.

Following is the information:


NET CAPITAL DEBT PER HEAD ON THE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT







£


Motherwell and Wishaw



…
460


Glasgow

…
…
…
246


Edinburgh

…
…
…
187


Lanark County


…
…
254


Dundee

…
…
…
332


Aberdeen City

…
…
…
238


Ayr County

…
…
…
204


Fife County

…
…
…
175


Renfrew County


…
…
84


Paisley
…
…
…
…
282


Aberdeen County


…
…
140

NOTES:

1. Debt figures from returns for 1969–70.
2. Population figures as at June, 1969.

Housing

Mr. Mackintosh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of housing starts in Scotland in the past six months; how these compare with the equivalent six months of the previous year; and what are his explanations for the changes that are revealed by these figures.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the number of houses started in the last six months compares with the number for the similar period a year ago; and what are the reasons for the difference.

Mr. Cordon Campbell: 18,470 houses were started in the last six months of 1970, and 19,649 in the last six months of 1969. The change reflects the response of local authorities to their housing needs.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this decline in housing starts is a very serious matter—very serious indeed in view of the sick housing situation in Scotland? Does he accept that this decline is to go further in the next year? What proposals has he to increase the number of housing starts now?

Mr. Campbell: The decline is not as regular as the hon. Gentleman suggests. For example, there were more starts in the second half of 1970 than there were in the first half. The general decline started in 1968, because between 1968 and 1969 there were nearly 5,000 fewer starts, and there were 3,000 fewer between 1969 and 1970.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the scrapping of S.E.T. on the building industry, a tax imposed by the previous Government, will give the building industry in Scotland a much-needed boost of £19 million and enable the industry to take up much of the slack of the present unemployment in the industry, which totals 26,000 at present, to whom we are paying unemployment benefit to the tune of the equivalent of 50 new houses per week?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware that S.E.T. has been a burden upon the building industry. My aim is to encourage public authorities and the private builders to meet the outstanding need wherever it exists and as quickly as possible and by all the means available, including improvement and slum clearance.

Mr. Ross: Does the reduction in the number of houses started, completed and authorised by Glasgow in the last two years reflect an improvement in its need?

Mr. Campbell: That is a question about Glasgow, and there are other Questions down about that.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of houses completed and the number of houses approved in Burntisland for the year ended 31st December, 1970.

Mr. Younger: Twenty-one local authority houses and three private houses were completed. No proposals for council house building were approved.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that at present there are 195 people on the waiting lists of Burntisland and that there are only 16 houses under construction? Is he prepared to condemn nearly 180 families in Burntisland to a homeless future? What steps does he propose to take to prevent that?

Mr. Younger: In the first place this is primarily a matter for the town council of Burntisland to decide. That council has not submitted to me during the past year any proposals for housebuilding but is in no way being held up by the Government, and I very much hope that it will be looking at its future needs. I have been doing need surveys in respect of all local authorities. I am still awaiting detailed estimates from Burntisland

of the number of houses which fall below the tolerable standard.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Mackintosh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what calculations the Scottish Development Department has made of the total estimated loss to Scotland of the Government's decision to phase-out the regional employment premium; and whether he has received representations from Scottish industry on this matter.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Government announced last October that the regional employment premium was to be paid in full until September, 1974. The total amount of regional employment premium payments in Scotland, on the latest figures available, for the financial year 1969–70 was £41·3 million.

Mr. Mackintosh: In view of this prospective loss of £40 million to industrial development, and with the statement in the Government's White Paper that the amount of money to be spent on industry and employment over the country is to decline by 7·1 per cent. per annum, how can the right hon. Gentleman go on saying that the amount of money to be spent on regional economic development in Scotland is not being diminished by the present Government?

Mr. Campbell: The statement confirmed that R.E.P. would be paid for four years from last October to the end of the seven-year period for which it was introduced by the last Government. This gives a considerable period ahead, removes uncertainty, and provides time to consider the economic situation in 1973–74 and what combination of measures will then be appropriate.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would answer the question he is asked.

Mr. MacArthur: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the imposition of selective employment tax in Scotland has had a much wider significance than the regional employment premium? Will he accept that the removal of this tax would effect a much-needed boost to the whole Scottish economy?

Mr. Campbell: I agree with my hon. Friend that S.E.T. has been harsh in


areas of Scotland. Of course, a number of things will happen during the four years R.E.P. continues to be paid. These are bound to alter the situation, and that will give us opportunities for considering other measures.

Mr. Ross: Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly what Scotland's share is to be of the additional expenditure on the S.D.A.? The Prime Minister told us that this year nothing is to be spent; the following year it is to be about £2 million, rising to a maximum in 1974–75 of £10 million. That is for England and Wales and Scotland. What is Scotland's share of that £10 million?

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know, because he was involved in this, that the results will depend on how successful we are with the economy as a whole and, therefore, to what extent incentives will be taken up. If we can get nearly 40,000 new jobs a year in Scotland, as we did between 1960 and 1964, those incentives will be taken up to a greater extent.

Housing Finance

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish estimates of the percentage of housing subsidies which will be applied to the private and public sector of housing in Scotland following his discussions with local authority associations on housing finance.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have already announced our policies and stated that discussions with local authority representatives are proceeding. I shall be able to provide more information after these discussions have been completed.

Mr. Douglas: Would the Secretary of State admit that the total expenditure envisaged in the White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1974–75 indicates a falling off in capital expenditure on housing in Scotland, and will he admit, therefore, that the direct result of Government policy, no matter how much he tries to cook the books, is less local authority and public sector housing in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: No, because if the hon. Gentleman looks at his hon. Friend's Question No. 18 he will see that there is to be an increase, at constant prices—

Mr. Ross: Oh, come on.

Mr. Campbell: —and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the working party is examining proposals at the moment and it hopes to report next month to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development.

Mr. John Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on suggestions which are rife in Scotland that it is the policy of the Government by 1976–77 to eliminate all rate contributions to council rents and all Exchequer subsidies? Will he deny that this is the policy of his Government?

Mr. Campbell: There has been no statement about reducing Exchequer subsidy. Countless times in this House I have stated that the intention is to retain the amount, at constant prices, but to redirect it to where it can do the most good. As regards rates, I have also pointed out that it is definitely our intention to remove the burden now on Scottish ratepayers, who are contributing 35 per cent.—no less—of the costs of council housing.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has had with local government associations regarding future housing finance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 13th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 36.]

Mr. Eadie: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has managed to breed a great deal of uncertainty about the future of new homes in Scotland? Is he aware, further, that the only certainty he seems to have bred is that there will be increased rents in the future?

Mr. Campbell: We have stated that we intend to bring in rent rebate schemes which, for the first time, will cover the whole public sector and will also extend into the private sector. With proper rent rebate schemes and the advice of the Brownlie Committee, which has just reported upon them, it will be possible to finance housing properly in Scotland and to reduce the unbearable burden on Scottish ratepayers.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: If we are unwise enough to sign the Treaty of Rome there will be, as my right hon. Friend knows, free movement of labour. Can he tell me what effect that would have on housing finance in Scotland and the number of houses?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend has raised a very much wider question. I can assure him that I shall look to him for advice about these matters when—if they do—they have some bearing on our housing problems.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why public expenditure on housing will increase from £225·2 million in 1969–70 to an estimate of £230 million in 1974–75; and what is the anticipated average rent increase per year for public authority housing on which these estimates have been made.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Estimates of public expenditure on housing in 1970–71 and 1974–75 are given in the White Paper on Public Expenditure published last month. The composition of this expenditure from 1972–73 onwards will depend on the outcome of the discussions which I am having with the local authority associations on the reform of housing finance.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this expenditure will result in more houses? This is what we want. Will he further say whether the Government's aim is to increase rents by not less than 10s. a week each year up to 1974–75, as was said in a circular in his Department a few months ago? Will he be honest with the people of Scotland and tell them that it is the Government's intention to increase rents substantially and regularly up to 1974–75?

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, it is our intention to provide more homes in the places where they are needed. On the second point, I have made it clear that rents will be raised by reasonable steps each year. The amounts await the result of the discussions which we are having with the local authority associations.

Mr. Mackintosh: The right hon. Gentleman was unable to answer my earlier supplementary question whether he expects house building to increase and

what ideas he has for increasing it. He has now said that he will build more homes in places where they are needed. What proposals has he to increase or to alter the present downward trend in housing starts?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I said that the intention was to "provide more homes", the point being to provide homes by repairing and retaining those that are falling into decay and to improve housing which would otherwise fall below the tolerable standards, in accordance with the Act passed by the last Government, and also by building new houses. I must emphasise that to take the view that the provision of homes depends entirely on new house building and not on other methods is to over-simplify in a misleading way the problem before the Government.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House do not accept, and nor should he, the proposition that house improvements mean less new house building? The two methods are not mutually exclusive, as we demonstrated. Does not the Secretary of State agree, from his own figures, despite the Artful Dodger's earlier answers which avoided the questions, that the house-building programme is falling? It is clear from this Question and this answer that the house-building programme is steadily falling to less than 30,000 a year.

Mr. Campbell: It is for the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to explain on his side why the starts between 1968 and 1969 fell by nearly 5,000—that is when the house-building programme started to fall—and by 3,000 in the following year. He should accept that, besides maintaining a house-building programme, particularly by encouraging the private sector which can add so much to the public sector, the provision of extra homes in the places where they are needed is now the requirement for any Government of Scotland.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the last four years there have been record completions of houses both in the public sector and in the private sector? What we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is what are his targets—or is he afraid to state them?

Mr. Campbell: No, I have made it perfectly clear that I have no intention of setting targets. For the right hon. Gentleman to talk about targets, having missed his own last year by over 5,000, is incredible.

School Building (Midlothian)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications he has had with Midlothian County Council regarding their future school building programme.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Midlothian Education Authority has asked for a meeting to discuss primary school building in its area. I shall be seeing representatives of the authority for this purpose on 8th March.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to insist that local authorities implement the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; and what financial provision has been made for this purpose in the White Paper on Public Expenditure 1969–70 to 1974–75, Command Paper No. 4578.

Mr. McCartney: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent instructions he has given to local authorities with regard to the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The Act does not give my right hon. Friend the power to instruct local authorities how its provisions should be implemented. He has, however, sent out several circulars to bring the requirements of the Act to the notice of local authorities, and offered guidance on them. He is also arranging to obtain from the authorities the information which they are required to supply under the provisions of the Act.
No specific additional provision needs to be made for local authorities' expenditure in implementing the Act, but I can give an assurance that, in approving building proposals, my right hon. Friend will take full account of expenditure required to meet the needs of the disabled.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that when the Act was passed the previous Government in their Money Resolution undertook to underwrite all the financial burdens laid on the local authorities? Do the present Government stand by that undertaking, and will they engage in a publicity campaign on television and radio to make the estimated 250,000 seriously disabled people in Scotland aware of the provisions of the Act, about which the local authorities are doing very little?

Mr. Taylor: The Government take the Act very seriously. In fairness, some of the provisions have been in force for less than three months. The fact that local authority expenditure on social services over the period concerned, as I have said previouly today, will increase by about 25 per cent., shows that local authorities have the money to expand their social services in this and other ways.

Mr. Murray: The Minister has rightly pointed out that Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 190 do not apply to Scotland. He will know that Section 1 lays upon local authorities the duty to have a register of disabled persons. Will he instruct Scottish local authorities to keep such a register?

Mr. Taylor: The Social Work (Scotland) Act covers many of the provisions dealt with in these Sections. It is my intention that the services which we shall provide in Scotland will be no worse than in England.

Employment Prospects

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Scottish Trades Union Congress about the employment prospects in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I met the Scottish Trades Union Congress twice during 1970, and they had a meeting this week with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at which I was present. On all these occasions employment prospects in Scotland were discussed.

Mr. Small: In view of the grave unemployment situation in Scotland, will the Secretary of State at regular intervals,


say quarterly, give advice to the S.T.U.C. on employment prospects?

Mr. Campbell: I am glad to say that I have frequent meetings with leading members of the S.T.U.C. on the Scottish Economic Council and elsewhere, besides the meetings I have described. On all these occasions we have opportunities to talk about unemployment and what can be done to bring modern industry to Scotland and to encourage industry there to flourish and expand.

Police (Pay)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations on police pay.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Negotiations on the current pay claim are still proceeding in the Police Council for the United Kingdom and my right hon. Friend has not yet received a recommendation from it. The council negotiators are meeting again tomorrow.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister take cognisance that the Prime Minister told us yesterday that more than 3 per cent. of civil servants received a 20 per cent. increase? Will that be the yardstick for the police? Many areas in Scotland are under-manned. Will not the Government fulfil their election promise to give the police a fair deal and a living wage?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, it would be quite wrong for me to comment on the merits of the claim while negotiations are proceeding. I entirely accept the need to strengthen the police. We gave that undertaking at the General Election, and we shall fulfil it.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that thousands of police officers who joined the police force after the war are due to retire after 25 years' service, and that this will be a tremendous drain on the police force in Scotland unless a substantial increase in salary is awarded?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept, as the hon. Gentleman said, that one of the biggest problems is wastage. Another problem is that which he mentioned of the police officers who are coming up to retirement. This matter will be taken into account in the negotiations.

Local Voluntary Organisations (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to how many local voluntary organisations he gives direct financial assistance for community purposes.

Mr. Edward Taylor: In 1970 capital grants were made to 23 local community associations, 112 local sports clubs and 30 local youth organisations to help them to provide new or improve existing facilities.

Mr. Brown: Could the hon. Gentleman not break with the conservative traditions of this Government, and indeed of previous Governments, and sponsor or assist, in co-operation with local authorities, the setting up of pilot schemes in community work in the light of the importance of community councils, even under Wheatley?

Mr. Taylor: I am very much aware of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this matter, and I assure him that I shall bear very much in mind what he said.

Manufacturing Industry (Employment)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Economic Planning Board's estimates of the changes in employment in manufacturing industry in the period 1970 to 1975.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Scottish Economic Planning Board is carrying out, as a continuing exercise, an examination of the factors likely to determine labour supply and demand in Scotland over the next few years.

Mr. Douglas: I hope that the Secretary of State will concede that, whatever estimates the Planning Board has made, it has been drawn off course by the high incidence of unemployment in Scotland, particularly in the manufacturing industry. Would he concede that his Government's policy is undermining the manufacturing base which the Labour Government created in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: The answer to the last part of the question is, "No". As many hon. Gentlemen know, before I came


into office I was prophesying unemployment in Scotland this winter if the Labour Government did not make changes. I was not myself surprised at what happened, but I regret it. The Labour Government in their 1966 White Paper estimated a net gain of 60,000 jobs, but during that period there was a net loss of 82,000.

Mr. Strang: Since the Secretary of State has reminded us of his prophecy of unemployment this winter, would he give a categorical assurance that unemployment in Scotland next winter will be substantially less than it is now?

Mr. Campbell: I can give an assurance that the changes which we have made and which the previous Government refused to consider should lead to a better situation next winter.

Highlands and Islands Development Board

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Highlands and islands Development Board concerning the development of the sporting estates in the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, Sir, but sporting estates feature in the Board's first comprehensive development report on Kildonan.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State repudiate the Prime Minister's statement last week that the Government would not allow the Highlands and Islands Development Board concerning compulsory powers, or does he believe that his friends, the sporting landlords of the Highlands, are interested, without compulsion, in providing employment?

Mr. Campbell: No; the hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point to which the Prime Minister was referring. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was in the House and will remember that the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill, as first introduced, contained a Clause which would have given powers to take over compulsorily and run any kind of enterprise. Fortunately, the Government at that time accepted an Amendment to include the words "by agreement", which completely transformed the effect of that Clause, and said that this had been their intention.

Therefore, the legislation which finally emerged was quite different from the Bill as first published.

Mr. David James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as the trustee of a large highland sporting estate, I can tell him that for a long time we have offered the Highlands and Islands Development Board unlimited co-operation in developing sport and tourism?

Mr. Campbell: As hon. Members know, I do not myself shoot or fish—

Sir G. Nabarro: Why not?

Mr. Campbell: I am sorry to say that I am 80 per cent. disabled. But I am aware that sport can contribute to the Highlands and its economy and should be compatible with agricultural and other pursuits.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman look anew at his answer? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in answer to a question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, clearly stated that the Board would not be allowed to use its compulsory powers. Would he examine this matter, since we do not wish to have the record corrected again? This is an important point and I ask him to look at what we have said.

Mr. Campbell: I heard the Prime Minister on that occasion and I have a report of his words with me. I wish to make the record clear, because I took part in those other proceedings in the debates on that Bill when on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) was not in the House at that time. When that was referred to outside this House as "a Marxist Measure". it was in relation to Clause 6, which at that time was an odious and obnoxious Clause, which was later changed to the satisfaction of the whole House.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Prime Minister was not referring to powers which the Board does not enjoy but to compulsory powers which are contained in the Act? Will he give an assurance, in contradiction to what was said by the Prime Minister, that the Board will be allowed to use compulsory powers which it enjoys?

Mr. Campbell: Again the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Prime Minister was replying to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition referring to the remark about its being a Marxist Measure.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen can look it up. I have the quotation with me. The Prime Minister was replying to a question about its being a Marxist Measure, which was a reference to Clause 6 in the Bill as it first appeared. Later in the Bill we discussed the compulsory powers. This is all on the record.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a deputation from the Highlands and Islands Development Board recently visited the Midland counties? When the Board repeats its visit, would my right hon. Friend arrange lo accompany the Board and then, after it has completed its official duties, proceed to South Worcestershire where I will offer my right hon. Friend excellent fishing, shooting, hunting and other sporting facilities?

Mr. Campbell: As I have indicated, I am afraid that they can be of little use to me but I am very much aware of the welcome the Highlands and my area of the North gave to my hon. Friend when he made a visit there recently.

Teachers (Shortage)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further study he proposes to make of the secondary teacher shortage in 1972–73.

Mr. Edward Taylo: My right hon. Friend's Department is currently engaged on studies of staffing needs.
The main purpose of these investigations is to establish more objective standards for determining the numbers of teachers needed by different types and sizes of secondary school.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that the estimates of the shortage grow larger and larger and that part-time education in Scotland has now reached alarming proportions? Does he consider it educationally wise to raise the school-leaving age throughout Scotland in these circumstances?

Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend is aware, the problem, though serious, is concentrated largely in several areas.

This is a major problem, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are conscious of the need to recruit more teachers and are taking all possible steps we can.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in 1946 the Labour Government, faced with teaching conditions infinitely worse than those faced by the present Government, raised the school-leaving age? Will the Tory Government, when they face the issue in far better circumstances, ensure that the school-leaving age goes up to 16?

Mr. Taylor: We have already said that it is the Government's intention to proceed with the arrangements for raising the school-leaving age on the due date. But I do not accept criticism from the Labour Party, bearing in mind the very severe teacher shortage which the Labour Government left this Administration.

Mr. Buchan: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the best single thing which he could do to guarantee that we recruited the kind of teacher we require would be to give the House an assurance today that Scottish teachers will not be put on the chopping block, as the Government have done to every other public servant in recent wage negotiations? I hope that he will not follow the lead given by his right hon. Friend in leaning on the local authorities. Such a guarantee would go a long way towards helping the situation in Scottish schools.

Mr. Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's policy to ensure that there is fairness in all our dealings with everyone. I hope that our general policy will be infinitely better than the shambles which the previous Government left us.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: This is the second occasion on which we have not reached the Questions tabled to the Minister for the Civil Service. The difficulty is that on the one side there is an insatiable quest for information and on the other an almost remorseless endeavour to give it. I therefore hope that this matter may be considered again because I do not think that the situation is very satisfactory.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Speaker, given your guidance and help to frustrated Sassenach Members such as myself on Scottish Question days? As it is possible to reach the "Minister for the Bureaucracy" by Questions only once every three weeks, and as we have been frustrated by the loquacity of the Scots so that only 30 Questions have been answered, would you, Mr. Speaker, prevail on the authorities to rearrange matters in such a fashion that the "Minister for the Bureaucracy" comes in at Question No. 15 on Wednesdays, thus enabling us every three weeks to put Questions to him instead of being squeezed out by these Scots?

Mr. Speaker: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks about loquacity. My intervention had very much the same purpose in view.

Mr. David Steel: Further to the point which you raised, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to a matter within your control. Is not one of the difficulties that there is such a galaxy of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on Scottish affairs—no fewer than six, I understand—it is very difficult to increase the number of Questions answered and extremely difficult for back-bench Members to put any questions at all?

Mr. Speaker: It would be very dangerous for me to pronounce on galaxies, on whatever bench they might be.

Mr. Lawson: Further to the point of order. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will bear in mind that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the equivalent of about seven Ministries and that we have very little opportunity to question him. Therefore, when you consider this matter, I hope that you will try to ensure that it is not Scottish Questions which suffer.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is on a very real point. In trying to get along as quickly as possible, one has to give proper time for matters to be investigated because there is a very broad spectrum to be examined. I will bear the point in mind. But it is not for me; it is for the usual channels.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order. May I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is within your power to

deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) about the number of supplementary questions put by what are termed privileged right hon. Members—Privy Councillors and Front Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House. We know that the custom is for Mr. Speaker to give privileges to Privy Councillors in debate. [Interruption.] Listen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully.

Mr. Lewis: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to deal with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). A custom which has been carried on for some time is that Mr. Speaker gives privileges to Privy Councillors in debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may accept that —[HON. HEMBERS: "No."]—but it is taking things a bit far if right hon. Members who do not table Questions are given precedence in asking supplementary questions on Questions which other Members have tabled? May I suggest that you look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and do not give preference to Front Bench spokesmen and Privy Councillors just because of the positions they hold to the detriment of other Members?

Mr. Speaker: This is almost a case of the biter bit. I am almost regretting that I said anything at all on the matter. However, only one Privy Councillor has been called today. At Question Time I try to call those who I think are entitled to ask questions. I cannot call all hon. Members who wish to ask questions, and I regret that. However, I will bear in mind everything that has been said.

Mr. Ross: Would it not be much easier for members of the Liberal Party to get a Question answered if they tabled one? The Liberal Party has not tabled a single Question to Scottish Ministers today.

Mr. Pavitt: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) dealing with the extent of the responsibilities of the Scottish Office. I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. This situation arises not only with the Scottish Office but as a result of the combination of a


large number of responsibilities in giant Ministries. Even though Questions are tabled early, many of them are not reached because more than 100 Questions are put down before four o'clock. May I ask the Leader of the House through you, Mr. Speaker, to consider how Questions tabled for answer by giant Departments with multiple responsibilities can be reached?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the time which we have spent on this matter has been wasted. There is a real problem, and I hope that the subject can be considered through the usual channels.

Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order. In accordance with the rules for tabling Questions, I called at the Table Office 21 days ago at 10 a.m. and tabled my Questions No.43 which has not been answered today. May I ask you, Mr.Speaker, to suggest through the usual channels, which I believe are unusual at the moment, that as Members hand in their Questions they be numbered so that they can be dealt with fairly when the Order Paper is published?

Mr. Speaker: I will ensure that the hon. Gentlemen's point is considered.

TEACHERS (SALARIES)

Mr. Edward Short: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the breakdown of negotiations on teachers' salaries.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The management panel has made an open offer, based on a new structure, which would give every teacher an increase from 1st April of at least 8 per cent., and would increase the total salary bill in 1971–72 by £51 million or 8·8 per cent. This offer has been rejected by the teachers' panel. A further meeting of the Burnham Committed is arranged for 5th March. Negotiations therefore have not broken down.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is true only in a technical sense that negotiations have not broken down? They have in fact broken down. The next meeting is merely to hear the

teachers' replies on arbitration. Is she aware that both major teachers' organisations have announced today that they refuse to take part in arbitration and, therefore, that the only way in which there can be arbitration is if the right hon. Lady imposes it upon them? Is she also aware that neither the teachers' unions nor any others have any faith in arbitration under this Government? The whole concept of arbitration is now discredited. Is she also aware that I share with her the view that teachers' salaries should be restructured to give the career teacher a better salary? Is she further aware that the proposals of the Management Committee, in which her representatives have concurred, are utterly unacceptable to the teachers because they divide up the teaching profession? How does she reconcile her support for this new structure, which would further widen the gulf between primary schools and secondary schools, with her professed desire to close this gap? Finally, how does she reconcile this miserable offer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".]—with the increases agreed for the Civil Service and nurses and the very large increases for the police to be announced tomorrow?

Mrs. Thatcher: I will take the right hon. Gentleman's points in the order in which he raised them. The Burnham Committee will meet again a week on Friday and, therefore, negotiations are still continuing. On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, it might perhaps be helpful to give the precise arrangements for arbitration which, in the event of a breakdown, are that an independent chairman shall be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment after consultation with the panels, and two members shall be selected by my right hon. Friend, one from each of two lists of not fewer than four individuals each considered suitable by the Teachers' Panel and by the Management Panel respectively of the relevant committee.
I think that the restructuring proposals are good proposals for the Teachers' Panel to consider. As negotiations continue, I do not think that it would be right to go any further on that point.
Finally, I think that the conditions of service of the nurses and the kind of offer made with regard to night duty, etc.,


are really rather different from the conditions of service of the teachers and the kind of restructuring offer which has been made to them.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Lady saying now that she will impose arbitration on the teachers? Clearly, the process that she has described cannot take place without the co-operation of the teachers. Both major organisations have said today that they will not co-operate. In view of that, will she impose it?
Secondly, will the right hon. Lady answer my question about how she is able to say that these are good proposals for restructuring? How can she reconcile her support for them with her professed aim to close the gap between primary and secondary schools, when she knows that these proposals will widen the gap?

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I would impose arbitration. I was not saying anything of the kind. I was saying that the time for arbitration has not yet arrived. Therefore, no decision has been made.
As for the structural arrangements, I stand by what I said. The restructuring arrangements are good and worthy of consideration by the Teachers' Panel.

Mr. Hornby: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the reform of the salary scale for teachers is a very necessary and long overdue element in any settlement that might be reached? Does not she also agree that it would be a great pity if these negotiations were to break down on this point? Does my right hon. Friend agree, finally, that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are one more example of the Opposition backing the highest bid, whatever the circumstances?

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that the negotiations will continue a week on Friday and will not break down. I hope, too, that they will result in a structural agreement.

Mr. Marks: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the total amount available for this increase is quite inadequate and that an 8 per cent. increase will not even cope with the rise in the cost of living since the last award when one considers taxation and other deductions from pay? Does not she agree, further,

that the offer of a basic minimum of something like £1,059 is totally inadequate, especially to people who have spent three or four years living on student grants?

Mrs. Thatcher: On a question of fact, the offer on the bottom scale for the three-year trained teacher would be £1,055 in the first year rising by 12 increments of £70 and one increment of £95, followed by a further increment of £100, the last increment to be given after three years, the others to be annual, to a maximum of £2,090. That is the basic scale. There are several scales above that. The maximum for the topmost head teacher would be £5,275 a year. It is inevitable that in any restructuring offer the amount in the first year should be followed by further benefits in successive years as teachers reach higher maxima by larger increments.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would not it be a remarkable surprise if one of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen asked a constructive question on a pay dispute, instead of trying to make mischief?

Mr. Barry Jones: Is not it apparent in the current negotiations with the teachers that the local authorities are tied hand and foot to the Treasury Ministers? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the offer now made would result in a declining standard of living for teachers? Finally, is not there evidence that the phantom Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility for teachers in Wales?

Mrs. Thatcher: The Management Panel made it clear at its Press conference yesterday afternoon that it both spoke and speaks with one voice, by which it meant the local authorities and the Government representatives on the panel. I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is also in agreement with me.

Mr. Jennings: Is it correct that the first offer has since been raised by the management side to 9·7 per cent.? Secondly, has my right hon. Friend studied the long history of arbitration proposals during the regime of the previous Government?

Mrs. Thatcher: The conventions provide for "without prejudice" offers to be made higher than open offers, with a


view to trying to secure agreement. Such an offer was made. But such a without prejudice offer lapses if agreement is not secured.

Mr. Short: In the interests of accuracy, will the right hon. Lady make it clear that that higher offer was conditional upon the teachers accepting in their entirety the structural proposals of the management side?

Mr. Jennings: What about arbitration under the previous Government?

Mrs. Thatcher: All the offers have been made in relation to the structural proposals.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to move on now and, if I may, I will say why. It is a matter entirely for the Chair whether a Private Notice Question is accepted. I decided, after some initial doubt, to accept this one today. There has been eight supplementary questions. I do not think that because a Private Notice Question is accepted that necessarily means spending a quarter of an hour on each one. In this case, we have heard about the further meeting of the Burnham Committee on 5th March. There will be plenty of other opportunities to raise this matter again.

Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order. Do you consider it satisfactory, Mr. Speaker, that three of those supplementary questions should have come from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman? Is that a fair representation, knowing that the right hon. Gentleman represents only one union represented on the Teachers' Panel?

Mr. Short: Further to that point. I must ask the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) to withdraw that remark. In this House, I represent the electors of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 12th MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:
Mr. John Horam.
Captain L. P. S. Orr.
Mr. Neil Kinnock.

BILLS PRESENTED

MECHANICS OF PAYMENT OF ALIMENT BILL

Mr. Tam Dalyell, supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Michael Barnes, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Bruce Millan, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. James Sillars, and Mr. James Tinn, presented a Bill to transfer responsibility for the mechanics of collection and payment of alimony or aliment awarded to women, by court order, from the individual to the Ministry of Social Security and the Inland Revenue: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Friday 30th April and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr. James Wellbeloved, supported by Dr. Reginald Bennett, Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James Scott-Hopkins, Sir John Langford-Holt and Mr. Arthur Davidson, presented a Bill to extend the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment under section 4 of the Public Health Act 1961: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Friday 5th March and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[Tenth Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd February].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair.]

Clause 121

PEACEFUL PICKETING

Amendment No. 873 [23rd February], in page 83, line 37, to leave out the words
'not being a place where he resides '.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I rise to speak simply because, I was on my feet when the Guillotine fell last night. I want to put a question or two about peaceful picketing in the sense of peacefully communicating information to or obtaining it from someone.
On television the other night the cameras followed a blackleg postman strikebreaking who passed the local headquarters of the Union of Post Office Workers. The strikers came out and hurled at him what some people might consider abusive language. It was on the lines that the strike-breaker was nothing better than a quisling. Some might think this abusive language, while other might regard it as fair comment. I will not comment, having been called a quisling by Scottish Nationalists.
In the context of this Clause, would the shouting of that slogan, which is certainly communicating information or opinions about the strike-breaker from the strikers be construed as peacefully communicating it to him, or would the branch secretary who shouted the slogan be in breach of the law under the Clause?

Mr. Edward Gardner: This Clause restricts, in the narrowest sense, the place where peaceful picketing may lawfully take place, but also implies, although it does not express, recognition of a distinction between peaceful picket-

ing at the place where a person works and other places and peaceful picketing at or near his home.
This is a real and fundamental distinction. The nature and character of peaceful picketing when done at or near a person's work and the nature and character of it at or near his home are very different. A person who refuses to follow the decisions of his union, however right they may be, is entitled to look upon his home as a place of refuge. If he cannot do that, there is no other hiding-place.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. and learned Member is continuing the argument expounded on his side last night. Would he now give some conclusive evidence in relation to this type of picketing which is in favour of changing the law in this way?

Mr. Gardner: I shall come to this point, which was raised by the hon. Member last night. I find it a difficult line of argument to follow.
If one thinks that some action is so offensive that it should be prohibited by law, it seems to me, as I hope it will seem to the majority of the Committee, that it is quite irrelevant to consider statistics to decide how many times, if at all, that offensive action has happened in the past or the present. We are legislating for the future. What we want to ensure is that this kind of action, which we regard as offensive—on the immaculate principle that a person is entitled to protection within the confines of his own home—should not be allowed by law. This proposition is neither strengthened nor weakened by the production of statistics.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Although the undefinable nature of whether or not something was taking place near a person's home has been demonstrated in the discussions so far, and although, therefore, the law is rendered unenforceable—we wait with bated breath to hear the Solicitor-General answer this point—would the hon. and learned Gentleman still uphold this obscurity in the light of the absence of evidence to show that the law should go so far?

Mr. Gardner: This is not an unrealistic or obscure point or one which anyone considering the reality of the situation


should have the slightest difficulty in following.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that having to listen to that sort of claptrap nauseates me`? Some of us, like myself, were born in mining villages and can cast our minds back to 1926. None of us, in our working-class homes in long terrace housing, knew any incidents of this nature. I have not heard or seen this. I have spent my life among the working class and this hypothetical legislation nauseates people like me.

Mr. Gardner: If this is hypothetical then where is the harm in making such behaviour unlawful? What is wrong in saying that this should not be done if it is the sincere view of hon. Members opposite that such behaviour is not likely to happen?

Mr. James Johnson: It is Wonderland.

Mr. Gardner: It is not Wonderland. It is today and it may be tomorrow. These are difficult points, some of them points of law but all of them with an application to our everyday life. Hon. Members cannot close their minds to the realities of the industrial scene. I do not close my mind to what is happening outside daily, and to what appears to be a situation which could drift towards disaster, a situation in which extremists may take over, although I hope that they never will.
4.0 p.m.
If, as is suggested by the Opposition, the precautions we are seeking to import into this Bill are likely to be unnecessary and unreal, let me put it to the test in this way. If I were to stand here and say to this Committee that pickets who were trying to persuade Post Office workers or any other workers in an industrial dispute had been going to the homes of those workers there would, I suppose and I would expect, be an outcry.

Mr. Orme: Give us some evidence.

Mr. Gardner: There is no evidence. I am not suggesting that there is. What I suggest to the Committee is that there is a real distinction between peaceful picketing outside a man's place of work

and peaceful picketing outside his home. The Committee cannot overlook the fact that "peaceful picketing" is a misnomer. Peaceful picketing is quite different from friendly picketing. The peaceful picket trying to persuade someone whom he regards as a blackleg to return to work is more likely to be hostile than friendly, more likely to incite fear than respect.
It takes a strong mind and a courageous conviction to enable a person to defy his union's decision and to continue working. Neither trade union leaders nor members of the Opposition must be surprised at the admiration which has been accorded to trade union workers, including the young women, who have stood up to the picket lines recently. This is no more than an elementary precaution that we are introducing into the Bill, one that is needed and which I ask the Committee to support.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Like the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), I want to see the protection of people who are are in their own homes. It is only a short time ago that a Tory councillor in one of the rural districts in my constituency suggested that there should be a demonstration outside my home because of something which the Minister had failed to do. I resented it and I would resent anyone interfering with a person in their own home.
I want to place before the Committee certain circumstances in which peaceful pickets might be put at risk as a result of talking to people near their homes and might be caught by the provisions of the Bill. To some extent participation in industrial organisation and my working-class background enables me to see the difficulties of this part of the Clause. I was engaged in distribution and we often had disputes, although not as often as some other unions.
A considerable number of people such as shop managers live on the premises, either at the back of or over a shop. It would be very difficult for peaceful pickets to keep within the law if they attempted to picket such people near their own homes. The caretaker of a school is in a similar position. There would be a difficulty in someone peacefully picketing such a person. This is legislation which will not apply to lawyers but to ordinary


people who will not make the sophisticated distinctions that we sometimes make.
What is likely to create a greater incidence of breaches of the regulations is the situation which can arise in areas where there is an enormous number of terraced houses. We live in a close community. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite, like myself, live in a small community and perhaps in detached houses. But when people live in an area where there are a number of terraced houses—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Colliery houses.

Mr. Loughlin: I am coming to that because I have a number in my constituency. Take the example of colliery houses and let us suppose that the men coming off the night shift decide upon strike action and want to stop the next shift going in. The relationship between miners and their workmates is not perhaps so formalised as it might be in other sections of the community. There would be nothing unusual in Tom Jones knocking on the door of Harry Brown and saying, "Don't go in Harry, we're on strike."

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is arguing against the proposition that the Englishman's home is his castle and that he is arguing instead in favour of the proposition that the Englishman's home is Barbara Castle?

Mr. Loughlin: Sir Robert, we all consider ourselves comedians, but this is not the type of comment to make during this debate. terruption.] If the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has a giggling fit, will he kindly leave the Chamber?

Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East): There is a place for him just round the corner.

Mr. Loughlin: Because Tom Jones has told his colleague to strike, it is possible that he will be in jeopardy, not because of the intention of the Government but because of the way in which the Bill will operate. I do not believe that the Government wish to stop peaceful picketing. The trouble with this legislation is that

if one is not caught under one provision, one is caught under another. For example, peaceful picketing will be allowed, but once blacking comes into it, it will be illegal.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Gentleman is quoting an example of one man telling another not to go to work. How could that be an offence under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act, 1875? We are referring to two or three people using violence.

Mr. Loughlin: Perhaps Tom Jones is not giving this advice. Maybe two or three men are telling a colleague not to go to work.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: That is a different story.

Mr. Loughlin: The trouble with hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they do not know the first thing about the habits of working-class people. The Clause says:
The provisions of this section shall have effect where one or more persons … 'pickets' … in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute".
I am not sure that I was wrong when I was referring to one man giving certain advice or taking action. The wording of the Bill is so vague that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) may be reading more into the word "one" than I am.
The Government are trying to stop people conducting effective picketing, because the most effective picketing that I have known is not when employees have been stopped from going to work but when supplies on their way to a factory have been stopped. The Government have, perhaps inadvertently, drafted the Bill in such a way that people may find themselves in breach of the Measure when the Government do not wish that to happen. In view of the way in which people not only work but also live, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I well understand that the right to carry out peaceful picketing is something which the trade unions value very much. It has been made clear in the earlier discussions on this issue that there has been no intention on the part of the Government to remove this general right. That should be clearly on the record.


The only point in dispute between the two sides of the Committee is whether it is wise for the Government to approve, and endorse in the Bill, the picketing of a man's home. Hon. Members will agree that there is a certain sacredness about one's home and family life and that these should be left undisturbed. While certain forms of peaceful picketing would obviously not necessarily disturb one's private life, as Donovan made clear, such disturbances could happen. That was clear from the quotation which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) gave yesterday, after I asked him to read a passage from the Report.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said yesterday, it is up to hon. Gentlemen opposite to prove that there is an absolute need to allow and authorise the picketing of a person's home. Unless they can prove this need, the Government are right to take the view that is taken by the Bill. In other words, hon. Gentlemen opposite have not proved that it is absolutely necessary and, in the absence of that proof, it would be irresponsible of the Government, in the comprehensive reform and modernisation of the trade unions on which we are embarked, to condone the picketing of a person's home.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I quoted that passage from Donovan, at his invitation, I stressed the fact that the Royal Commission had pointed out that there were existing remedies under the law for other than peaceful picketing and that people were protected against violence by the law as it stood.

Mr. Grylls: I appreciate that, but paragraph 855 of Donovan took away the importance of wanting to picket a person's home by stating:
From a striker's point of view, the most effective means for this purpose is the placing of pickets outside the place of work.
It should not, therefore, be necessary to picket a person's home.
In industrial disputes feelings can, and almost always do, run high on both sides. It is possible to imagine circumstances when two or three members of a strike committee might visit the home of a worker who, for one reason or another,

good or bad, disapproves of the strike that is in progress. It needs little imagination to believe that an incident could flare up in which the wife and small children in the home of such a person could become involved.
If the family of a Member of Parliament becomes involved in such an affair, then tiresome and upsetting though it may be, it is something which we accept when we enter politics. However, it is not the sort of thing which the ordinary worker should be forced to accept by having to tolerate the picketing of his home. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate that this is in no way trying to restrict liberty. It is the reverse. It is trying to preserve the liberty and sanctity of the home.
The factory can, of course, be picketed and, as Donovan said, picketing a factory is probably the most effective way of doing it. Perhaps the public house and shops can be picketed. However, picketing should be restricted to places other than the home. I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite will claim that, in this context, the preservation and protection of home life can be considered an illiberal act.

Mr. John Mendelson: I was amazed to hear the general legislative doctrine which the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) advanced when he said that one did not need evidence or statistics in this sphere but only legislation. It so happens, happily, that there are many practised and experienced Parliamentarians present on his side, and they must be as appalled as I am at this suggestion. We could legislate on anything on that basis.
For example, the Association of Paper Manufacturers has various regional bodies. I believe that one meets in Leeds once a month. It sometimes takes certain stringent decisions as to how each paper manufacturer should behave on matters of pricing, conditions and general policy. Discussions take place, and a nod is as good as a wink. It frequently occurs that they sometimes call upon each other at home because Mr. So-and-so might have missed the monthly meeting. As a matter of courtesy, a colleague calls at his home, perhaps on a Saturday afternoon, and informs him of what passed at the meeting and indicates to


him the decisions. There is never anything untoward, any threat or intimidation, as far as I know. But somebody might say, "Let us now legislate. Although there is no evidence or statistics", as the hon. Gentleman was saying, "that anything untoward ever happens, just the same we want to legislate and make it unfair industrial practice or an offence for a member of the association who has not been attending the monthly meeting in Leeds to be called upon by a colleague or by another entrepreneur in the same trade."
That is only a preliminary remark. I am not dealing with the substance of the matter yet. Surely there has to be a reason for legislation. In the absence of a reason it is absurd to argue that there should be legislation.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Before the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) finishes the exercise of testing the water before taking his more definitive plunge, would not he agree that if it be right that there is this good situation amongst manufacturers and that there is no apprehension of abuses, it is because a Conservative Government in 1956 legislated, under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, to ensure that there would be no unfair commercial practices, just as a Conservative Governernment are now legislating to ensure that there will be no unfair industrial practice?

Mr. Mendelson: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would bring up that point. That is why I put in three kinds of activity which passed at that meeting. We have not the time to go into the accuracy of the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. Even if it were true, the other two stand.

Mr. Gardner: The example given by the hon. Member for Penistone was one of an approach to a man's house for a perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable purpose, and he says that this is the sort of behaviour which, if the Committee so wished, could be legislated against. It could be. But the kind of behaviour which I was predicating and which we are now considering is offensive behaviour and becomes more offensive the nearer it gets to a man's home. That is the sort of behaviour against which we on this

side of the Committee feel that we ought to legislate.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) can get as much into harness as he wants, but it is obvious that I have talked past him. I have not yet reached the substance of the argument. I am merely trying to puncture his general case that we do not need any evidence for the legislation before going ahead with it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to follow me into the logic of it, I leave the matter there because we are under the Guillotine.
In another part of his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Anybody will see that we can legislate although there is no evidence". Who does he mean by "anybody"? The Donovan Commission—not just "anybody", but the appointed experts on this matter, drawn from industry, the law and the employers' side—in its Report at paragraph 877 states:
A majority of members consider that the Commission has had no evidence of abuse of the right to picket sufficient to justify such a restriction.
Surely it cannot be maintained in the face of that that anybody—which means "everybody" in this connection—will see the wisdom of that approach.
On the substance of the matter, the Clause is widely drawn, because in lines 39, 40 and 41 on page 83 it states:
… and do so only for the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information to him or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work.
That means that only one part of the Clause deals with persuading a colleague either to work or not to work." Of capital importance for the Committee is that the first two lines do not deal with persuading a colleague to work or not to work but deal with either obtaining information from him or imparting information to him. This is a very serious departure from the ordinary rights of Englishmen to call upon a colleague and ask him a question or impart information to him. In the face of that, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman appear particularly ridiculous.
The onus of proof is on the Government. It is not on the Opposition or anybody else. It is the Government's


legislation. Surely nobody can contradict me on that point. That at least ought to be common ground. If the Government want to interfere with such long-established traditional rights, what is the reason?
I want to separate the two propositions to which the Amendment is linked. The first proposition—that of obtaining information and imparting information—could be an ordinary discussion. How will right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite defend the first part of these three lines to their constituents? How will they defend the interference with this right unless there have been so many hundreds of thousands of cases where the right of merely calling upon each other has been abused and the evidence is overwhelming? That is how we proceed in legislation. We do not suddenly say, "We shall have a law for this, that and the other", if there is no reason for it.
I deeply object to those two lines especially, and to any of the legislation being introduced. Hon. Members opposite have not dealt with that so far. It will restrict the rights in future, in whatever way, of people, be they paper manufacturers, miners—as some of my constituents are—or steel workers, to call upon each other to impart or receive information.

Mr. Raymond Gower: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I do not wish to give way, because we are under the Guillotine. Some of my constituents work in the steel industry. Let us suppose that something occurs at work at 2 o'clock in the morning—as it recently did—and there is a dispute between the manager and two men, and the manager decides, wrongly in the view of the trade unionists, to send the men home without further ado, and the workers adopt a certain attitude. As the Committee knows, each piece of machinery is run by three shifts and there are teams of people who take over at 6 a.m. Surely it must be the right of ordinary citizens, on the way home between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., to call upon one of their colleagues and to tell him what has happened. This would become an offence—an unfair industrial practice—under the Bill. The words are
for the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information".

We are not dealing with the case of somebody saying, "Please do not go to work".
4.30 p.m.
Let us assume that two workers do not wish to call upon somebody else but wish to wait outside the house of one of their colleagues until he comes home from work. Instead of calling on him at an unearthly hour, they decide to wait outside his house until he comes out or comes home so that they can inform him of something that took place at two o'clock in the morning. This would then begin to be the process of persuasion, because what is the purpose of imparting such information? It is an implied appeal to the sense of solidarity of those about to go to work. [Interruption.] I am putting a logical case to the Committee. I know that hon. Members opposite do not like a logical case because they cannot disprove it.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. It is impossible to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson).

The Chairman: Order. I must ask hon. Gentlemen to be a little more orderly. If the hon. Member for Penistone does not give way, there is nothing they can do about it.

Mr. Mendelson: I have no intention of giving way. At the point when these two colleagues who are outside the door of the house with the intention of imparting information to seek a show of solidarity for those who have stopped work express a point of view and start discussing the question with their colleague, it changes into the matter dealt with in the last two lines—
persuading him to work or not to work".
If we allow these words to go through, the action I have described could be interpreted as picketing outside a home. The Clause is widely drawn and is a dangerous invasion into the ordinary rights of people, never mind about the rights of trade unionists.
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde was present when examples were given yesterday which showed the need to retain a residual right for trade unionists to call upon people or to wait for them outside their homes and to speak to them.


I will recall one of those examples. Strike breakers were hired by shipping employers and driven towards the place of work into the port, no chance being given or offered at any time for their striking colleagues to have any conversation with them. It can be said that a form of force was used to avoid any possible contact between the men who were on strike and those who were going to break the strike.

Mr. Swain: This happened in North Derbyshire.

Mr. Mendelson: Hon. Members will be able to quote other examples. In such a case, how are the members of a work group or of a trade union who happen to be on strike to contact the strike breakers? For all we know, it may be the most official and legitimate kind of strike that anybody can think of. In circumstances where the strike breaking force is driven in by the employers, who deliberately prevent any physical contact or conversation between those who normally work on the job and those who are driven in from outside, the people who normally work at the workplace are prevented even from saying to the strike breakers, "We think that in all conscience you should not do this".
It is absurd to deprive people on strike in such circumstances of the opportunity of being able to go somewhere else. They might say, "Let us try to meet these men in the pub "or" on the market square". It is absurd to say that in no circumstances in such a situation should those who are on strike be able to say, "We know that so-and-so is involved in this strike breaking activity. Let us wait for him until he goes home and then we will have a word with him".
Evidence is decisive. It is a proud claim of the trade union movement that it behaves peacefully even when involved in an industrial dispute. This is the factor which led the majority of the Donovan Commission to reach the conclusion that there is no need for legislation. It is important to weigh the evidence, to keep the situation that way, and not to introduce legislation that will make men feel bitter about their being prevented from even talking to people who are trying to break a strike.
This provision will not merely leave the situation where it is. It will do untold harm. This is why the Donovan Commission, after more than two years' work, rejected the idea of legislation.
It must be remembered that these things are matters of psychological judgment. A sense of fair play is absolutely essential for our industrial relations. It is precisely in those circumstances that, if there is an exemption or an exception to the normal course according to Donovan, which is the absence of violence and only peaceful discussion, there is the criminal law.
It has always been known that, in a situation of normal picketing at a factory gate, if anybody behaves in a way in which he should not behave and if peaceful picketing changes into something else, it immediately falls under the criminal law. Obviously, if anybody stood outside somebody else's home and did anything similar, it would immediately fall under the criminal law. The protection is there. There is no need to introduce this provision.
Therefore, the onus of proof is on the Government. I can hardly think that the Solicitor-General is very pleased with his so-called support he has received from the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde and other Members behind him. They just want to hit at picketing; that is what they are after. They want to discredit the general idea of workpeople having the right to persuade their colleagues. [Interruption.] This is where the cloven hoof shows, as it shows itself in so many other Clauses.
I repeat that that is what hon. Members opposite are after. The self-controlled Solicitor-General knows that he has to make a case for this. I do not believe that he can make a case for it. I therefore hope that we shall support the Amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will forgive me—

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman should know that I am not a learned Gentleman.

Mr. Fell: I should have thought that it was unnecessary to protest so much; for indeed I would have thought that it


would have required a learned Gentleman to adduce such a speech in defence of such a case as the hon. Gentleman has just adduced. It was the most monstrous thing to say to the Committee that hon. Members on this side are out to destroy peaceful picketing. It is rubbish.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), alone amongst hon. Members opposite, at least made a concession when he said, "I do not believe that a person's house should be disturbed in any way by pickets or anybody else, but …". Then the hon. Gentleman went on to make his case.

Mr. Loughlin: I did not say that I did not believe that a person's house should he disturbed by pickets. I said that I thought that a person's house was his castle. I thought that I said that it was to some extent a place that was private to the person concerned.

Mr. Fell: It is either a person's castle or it is not. Either it is his private home and his private property or it is not.
It is very difficult for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to defend their case on the Amendment. There is no defence for it, and they must know it. What is enormously surprising to the Committee is the amount of time that hon. Members have spent on this issue. Throughout our debates, I have on many occasions avoided speaking because! have felt, as we have all felt, that sensible and strong arguments were being put from the Opposition which, one understood, came from men who have lived their lives close to the matters we are discussing. But, on this question, I am astonished that hon. Members opposite should wish to fight against the Clause.
It was astonishing yesterday to see the way my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was constantly interrupted by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), jumping up and down and yelling at my hon. Friend, telling her to "Shut up" and "Sit down", because we were working under a guillotine. For heaven's sake, why?—so that we could have two, three or four hours of debate on this subject? It is absolutely ludicrous. Many of us thought that the right hon. Lady must have been behaving in that way because she wanted to get through this subject and

pass to something really important. But not a bit of it.

Mr. Harold Walker: Who does the hon. Gentleman think he is to judge the priorities?

Mr. Fell: With the greatest respect, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not interrupt me from a sitting position, for every time he speaks he attacks me from a standing position.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman challenges me to attack him from a standing position. Who the devil is he to judge the priorities in these matters?

Mr. Fell: Obviously, I shall not reply to that delightful intervention. There is a serious point here. Is it no longer possible for one side of the Committee to talk to the other about anything?—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone—

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Sir Robert. You will appreciate that we are working under a guillotine. The hon. Gentlemen has not yet referred to the Amendment, and he has been speaking for a few minutes already. Can you do something about it?

The Chairman: There is some substance in that complaint. The hon. Gentleman ought now to come closer to the Amendment.

Mr. Fell: With the greatest respect, it is utterly untrue for the hon. Gentleman, whom I have attempted to praise—the only one I did attempt to praise—to say that I have not referred to the Amendment. I referred to it at the beginning, and on several occasions since. So let us at least have some truth in this Committee, if nothing else.
I am trying to make an appeal to the Opposition to be sensible for once and to support that part of the Clause which they now wish to delete. It will do them nothing but harm throughout the nation if it becomes known, as they seem to want it to become known, that they do not want the ordinary private individual's house to be protected against picketing.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I shall not take up what was said by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). Throughout this debate, both today and last night, different views have been put


from each side of the Committee, and I have regarded it so far as a meaningful debate expressing the concern felt by both sides. If hon. Members opposite are irritated by what we say, they must, surely, accept that we are irritated by what some of them say.

Mr. Fell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman may give a cheer at that, but, obviously, he does not know how people live. He just made debating points.
One hon. Member opposite talked about general violence, and we have been told that, in order to make the case for our Amendment, we are required to justify the exclusion of these words. That is a queer concept to apply to the preparation of legislation. The onus lies on those who maintain that these words should stand.
It must be acknowledged—some hon. Members have conceded it—that there is a greater wealth of experience on the subject of picketing and the circumstances arising from picketing among Members on this side than among hon. Members opposite. It is no good making demagogic speeches on this subject. It is a vital issue. We are conscious that in the circumstances associated with picketing people may be hurt. It is sometimes the tragedy of strikes that people are hurt. There never has been a strike or picketing in which someone, somewhere along the lines, has not been hurt in certain circumstances. We recognise that, and we agree that it is deplorable.
The word "peaceful" seems to be thoroughly devalued by the Government in this debate. There are plenty of learned Members on his side, and I am sure that the Solicitor-General will have been appalled at the way in which they, and others, have sought to devalue the word "peaceful" in this Clause. It is a meaningful word to us, and anything which is unpeaceful comes under the criminal law.
I have said that strikes are hurtful to people. I understand the argument when hon. Members opposite say that they do not want women and children hurt. Neither do we. Incidentally, on the question of the word "peaceful", the great demonstration which took place on Sun-

day was a good example of how the trade union movement tries to conduct its business in a peaceful manner.
Sometimes, on the picket line—I have been there many times in my working life—there is provocation. One thing which pickets will not stand for is the chastising of women and children. We utterly reject the argument that our Amendment would mean that women and children would be penalised. Sometimes, there are hurts, but those who try to legislate for these things will find great difficulty. I understand what some hon. Members tried to say, but I want them to understand that in the aftermath of a strike there will sometimes be hurts.
I have lived in a mining area all my life. After a strike is over, what happens? Women and children are hurt, because at school others will say, for instance, "That is John Macdonald, the son of blackleg Macdonald", or "That is Mary Macdonald, the son of blackleg Macdonald", and so on. [Laughter.] This carries on throughout the whole of their lives. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but it is a very serious matter in a mining area.

Mr. Loughlin: They do not know anything about it.

Mr. Eadie: As my hon. Friend says, it illustrates their appalling ignorance on the subject of picketing.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman saw some of our faces, but he could not have seen the faces of his hon. Friends. I entirely understand the force of his argument, but by an unconscious slip of the tongue—this is what amused some hon. Members—he spoke of, "Mary Macdonald, the son of a blackleg".

Mr. Eadie: I understand. In trying to rush my argument forward, I must have made a slip, but it was, surely, obvious what I meant. I am trying to put a serious argument.
People will be hurt. I have known lads who have blacklegged. Sometimes, when they were old, after they had retired, perhaps, they have said to me, "Alec, it was a great mistake. I was selfish, and I inflicted hurt on the whole of my family". That sort of thing is the result of strikes. If hon. Members


opposite want to avoid hurts, they must try to solve that problem, not aggravate it.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the effect on a man's child at school. Is there not also a risk that hurt might come to his wife and family if his house were picketed?

Mr. Eadie: It does not apply in that way at all. I am trying to show how illogical the Government are in trying to put a provision such as this in the Bill. This debate illustrates once again how important it is to recognise that, in dealing with industrial relations, one is dealing with human factors. I felt sorry for the chap who told me that he wished he had never blacklegged because it affected his whole family. In close communities this can have appalling effects. I am sorry that sometimes man's inhumanity to man occurs, but it is a factor. Even the most eminent Conservative lawyers could never legislate to prevent it. It illustrates, as it has throughout the Bill, that industrial relations is a very human question, which the law cannot solve.
I wish that the Government had listened more to what my hon. Friends and I have said about industrial relations. They are building up tremendous problems for themselves in believing that the law can solve the question of industrial relations. We shall have to deal with it in a human way. We shall always be imperfect, but let us try to deal with it like that. That is the way to solve industrial relations, not by bringing in the law.

Mr. Awdry: I intervene only because the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) would not give way to me, though I rose several times and was rightly rebuked by the Chair for doing so. The hon. Gentleman built up a great argument on a fallacy. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said that if Tom Jones, or anyone else, went with two or three other men to see a fellow worker at his house with some information he would commit an offence. But that cannot be the position. Subsection (2) says:
In the circumstances specified in the preceding subsection, the attendance of the pickets at that place for that purpose—

(a) shall not of itself constitute an offence under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 —
We must see what that Act says.

Mr. John Mendelson: That has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Awdry: The hon. Gentleman took the example of going with information and waiting outside the house for the answer, but he cannot indicate any Act of Parliament that makes such an action an offence. It is necessary to look at the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act to find out whether there is conduct amounting to intimidation. That is why his argument is based on a fallacy. Surely, no one thinks that it could possibly be an offence for a man to go to see a colleague at his house. That would be absurd, and no one suggests that it could be an offence. It becomes an offence if there is an element of intimidation. That is what worries us.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman must look at subsection (2) in relation to subsection (1). He has the thing all mixed up.

Mr. Awdry: I do not approach this as a lawyer, but I think that I have got it right. Subsection (1) sets out the type of circumstances, and the offence referred to must be an offence under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, or another Act. I believe that I am right, but we will let my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General sort this out when he replies.

Mr. Harold Walker: The final paragraph of Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act provided protection for exactly the groups of people who are now being exposed by the Bill. That paragraph was subsequently repealed by the 1902 Act. If those people are not to be exposed by the Bill, why was it necessary to write that paragraph into the 1875 Act?

Mr. Awdry: It would be better if I did not try to be an amateur Solicitor-General on this point, and allowed my hon. and learned Friend to give us the answer. I understand that for an offence to be committed under the Clause there must be an element of intimidation. The discussion is all about whether that element of intimidation, that pressure, should be brought to a person's home.


I hope that the Opposition will accept the explanation to be given by my hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps it is a futile hope, but it would be much batter if occasionally we could see each other's point of view, and if the Opposition did not press on with an Amendment when a proper explanation was given. They do not have a strong case. I cannot believe that it is worth their while pressing the Amendment to the limit.
Picketing is not a very pleasant practice, and it is bound to lead to a certain amount of argument and strife. I imagine that we all agree about that. If the argument and strife are brought to a person's home, it is rather odious.

Mr. Skinner: The question of a person's home has been mentioned several times. The Bill speaks of
a place where he resides".
In my constituency the place where the miner resides happens to be the place where he works; it is within the precincts of the pit, and the picket line is arranged around the back gardens of the houses. What I want an assurance on is whether
a place where he resides
is in conflict with the person's place of work.

Mr. Awdry: That is a rather narrower point. What we are talking about is whether the argument and strife should be brought to the home of an individual worker. Several hon. Members asked yesterday for examples of violence, and I admit that I can give none. As far as I know, there has been no violence of this kind in my constituency. But we are talking not just about violence but about pressure. Picketing involves some pressure, which is applied to persuade a man not to work. Let me give an example. Two or three workers go to a man's house and call at the door or stand outside with armbands on with the intention of persuading that worker not to work. If he chooses to ignore them and go to work, there is bound to be unpleasantness and a row. The wife and children of that worker will be involved. Many wives are naturally very sensitive and do not want to be in the public gaze. They do not want to be involved in a public row and they hate it if unpleasantness comes into their homes. Many wives

would suffer in health if that happened. They would be distressed and there would be serious consequences for them.
All that we on this side of the Committee are trying to do is to protect families from that situation. We are not trying to weaken the trade unions in any way. In our view, picketing can take place anywhere else in the world, in the factory or the street, but not in the home. That is what the debate is all about.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am convinced after listening to two or three of the speeches by Conservative hon. Members that those who drafted the Bill lived in suburbia. A Clause like this could never have been drawn up by anyone who knew old industrial England. There must be many places in my constituency and elsewhere, particularly in Lancashire and the mining areas, where the houses abut the factories or mines. Some of the biggest works in my constituency have terraced houses right opposite their entrances. If any of the fellows who live in those houses work at the factory, where can the pickets peacefully picket without falling foul of the Clause? If they stand with their placards on the footpath opposite the works entrance, they will probably be standing outside the front door of people working at the factory. There is nowhere else where they can picket that factory. There are mills where houses abut on either side of the main entrance. This means that a picket outside that mill would, presumably, fall foul of the law even though he was not trying to picket a home but merely picketing the works. The closeness of the home to the factory gate would put the pickets in a peculiar position. We should have clarification of that.
5.0 p.m.
There is a far more modern form of intimidation than picketing. The telephone can be a very abusive and intimidating instrument. Yet there is no suggestion that anyone using a telephone to abuse or to persuade someone engaged in blacklegging to desist from doing so should fall foul of the Bill. I am not suggesting that, on Report, we should have an Amendment to make that possible, but we all know that the telephone can be a far greater intimidator and far more irritating than a knock on the door.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman using a dangerous double-edged weapon and accepting that picketing is itself intimidating and equated with intimidation?

Mr. Fernyhough: No. Temporarily, I am accepting the argument of those who want the Clause. They are saying that if I stand outside the home of a blackleg and that home is opposite the factory in which he works, if I have a placard or try to speak to him I fall foul of the law. That is something which has not been illegal in this country in the lifetime of any hon. Member here. It has not caused any difficulty or hardship except in so far as what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) had to say about the 1926 strike. I remember that strike and I know that some of the bitterness lives on to this day. Hon. Members should remember how that bitterness arose. These men were engaged in a bitter struggle to protect their hard won rights and they felt that those who were not with them were against them.
Surely this was a natural reaction. Hon. Members opposite who were captains and air marshals and what have you in the forces must have felt the same about men who deserted. They had no time for them. They thought that they were unworthy of the cause. Men engaged in an industrial struggle rightly or wrongly take the same line about colleagues as hon. Members opposite do about those who desert from the Armed Forces.
The Solicitor-General should reconsider this matter. I do not believe that the industrial experience of Britain justifies a change in the law of this magnitude. Millions of days have been lost in strikes during the last 12 months, but not one hon. Member opposite has been able to give a single example in which a constituent has complained that picketing has in any way influenced or intimidated him. After all these years of practical experience in the House of Commons—some hon. Members have been here for many years—they are unable to call upon one example of a constituent saying that the law should be changed because he has had a bitter and formidable experience of picketing.
In introducing a Clause of this kind, the Government are doing a great disservice to millions of ordinary men and

women in the trade union movement because they are pretending that those men and women are a lot of brutes who will force other people to comply with their views even if they do not agree with them. I do not accept that valuation of the average British worker. I think that the average British worker is a decent, law-abiding peaceable citizen. Hon. Members opposite have even tried to bring in the women and the children, but there is not a body of men whose whole existence has been so devoted to making the lives of their women and children happier as that of the men who belong to the trade union movement, because those men wanted to improve the standard for their children and to free their women folk. In view of our industrial history, there is no justification for the Clause and the hon. and learned Gentleman should willingly and gladly be guided by us and accept the Amendment.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The indiscriminate incomprehension and intemperance of the way that the Clause has been opposed and the Amendment proposed by hon. Members opposite gives one an insight into the frailty of the foundation of their argument. It is really an alarming and astonishing insight. There is no other Clause and no other Amendment in respect of which I have felt less doubt the longer the debate has proceeded. I see no reason to make any change in the Clause. In order to explain why, I need to explain just what we are on about and how slender is the change being proposed.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Why bother?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) says, "Why bother?". I should like at the outset to explain the dilemma in which hon. Members opposite find themselves. On the one hand, they say that the possibility of anything happening at a person's home that could be complained of in the slighest way is so remote, so hypothetical, that there is no need to consider it in legislation. Very well. Let us accept the Clause as it stands and proceed upon that basis. Alternatively, they say that what we are doing is striking at the heart of the organisation of


trade unions, attacking their basic philosophy. Which is it? If it is part of the basic philosophy of organised labour to preserve the law as it stands and resist the Clause unamended, I am astonished and the country will be astonished as well.
The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, is the foundation of this provision and is the only foundation upon which an offence in respect of picketing can be founded, unless it be the obstruction of the highway or assault or some other matter of that kind. Section 7 of the 1875 Act says:
Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing …
something he is entitled to do,
Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property: or … Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place…
is guilty of an offence. In order to show an offence under that provision, it would have to be shown that the person or persons were acting with a view to compelling another person to abstain from what he was entitled to do. They would be doing so if they were watching or besetting the place, the house or place where the person works or happens to be or happens to live.

Mr. Fernyhough: rose—

The Solicitor-General: I must continue the explanation. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker)—

Mr. Fernyhough: rose—

The Solicitor-General: I am half way through a section of the story and the right hon. Member must restrain himself. The hon. Member for Doncaster pointed out that there was an original proviso added to that Section in the 1875 Act and replaced by the proviso to Section 2 of the 1906 Act. The essence of those provisos was really to make it plain that attending at or near—a variety of places, but basically a place where somebody lives or works or happens to be—for the purpose of, in the words which appear in this Clause,
peacefully obtaining information … or peacefully communicating information"—

and this is in the 1906 Act—
or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work
is all right. The effect of those provisos in the 1875 and 1906 Acts and here is that in order to be found guilty of an offence it must be shown that one is watching or besetting with a view to prevailing upon a person in an intimidatory fashion; and they made it plain that there is a licence that people may attend upon a person outside his place of work or his home or any other place. It is in that context that we should look at this provision. All that we are opposing is a licence saying it is perfectly lawful for a group of people to post themselves outside somebody's home. It does not expose anyone—

Mr. Loughlin: Why?

The Solicitor-General: I will come to why in a moment. I want to make plain what we are doing. It does not in itself expose anyone to risk of prosecution, as hon. Members opposite have said. To qualify for that one must be acting with a view to compelling—watching, besetting. So that we say it is unnecessary and unattractive—and I will explain why in a moment—to give a clear licence for people to post themselves in this fashion, besetting the home—basically the home—or the place where somebody happens to live.

Mr. John Mendelson: That is precisely what I was afraid of. This does not justify the Solicitor-General's first arrogant introductory remarks. If two people decide to go into the home or to stay outside, but in order to talk to the man to persuade him, that might be interpreted as besetting, and then they would fall under the Solicitor-General's Clause.

The Solicitor-General: No. They would only begin to fall under the Clause—I will develop the argument—if in fact they were to post themselves and were there with a view to compel, watching or besetting the house.

Mr. Loughlin: I gave examples.

The Solicitor-General: There is something astonishing in a proposition for an express licence for posting outside somebody's home and conducting—[Interruption.] I will develop the argument and explain the points which were put to me.


The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) asked what happens if the home is over a shop—if I may put it so simply—and other hon. Members put the same kind of example. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I think, gave a similar example, where the home is intermingled with a pithead or colliery workings. The answer is that if pickets attend at the place, that is, a shop or pithead, where the person works or carries on business, then under this Clause 121(1,a) they are expressly and plainly protected as they were under the 1875 Act or the 1906 Act.
The only variation which is made by this Clause has been rightly identified by the hon. Members opposite who drafted this Amendment. That is the only position at which this blanket presumption in favour of posting no longer prevails—that is, the place where he resides.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. and learned Gentleman really must be as honest as he possibly can be. What this Amendment is seeking to do is to delete the words
not being a place where he resides
because one must read paragraphs (a) and (b) together, and the picket is caught on both legs here. I gave illustrations time and time again. That man is caught under this Bill; he comes under it.

The Solicitor-General: No. If I may answer the point directly, without acknowledging the suggestion that I may be dealing with the Committee dishonestly—because I am certainly not—the provisions of this Clause are clear, and concern persons who
attend at or near a place where a person works or carries on business".
If people attend at such a place, where a man works or carries on business, and do so only for the purposes set out under the previous Sections and this Bill that does not of itself constitute an offence.
One comes to subsection (1,a) and (b) and the word is "or", and they may attend at any other place where a person happens to be, and the only restriction or qualification is that correctly identified by the hon. Member who drafted this Amendment, that is
not being a place where he resides".

The only place where the law is being altered is, if persons are outside that place where somebody resides but where he does not work. [Interruption.] It is clear if one looks at the wording. There is no possible room for doubt, and the wording of the Amendment is precisely directed to this.
If one were to remove the words which this Amendment wants to remove we would be back to the 1906 Act, and this, and no more, is the narrow area of our discussion, whether there should be a presumption in favour of the legality of posting pickets at a place where a person lives.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps using the word "posting". That is in his imagination. Nowhere does he really define what a picket is. If the picket takes his armband off and goes along to a fellow striker or fellow worker, is he or is he not a picket? I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will answer, because I do not want to intervene again, and will deal with the situation where, as I said last night, even a strike committee might go along to try to persuade somebody to come back to work, perhaps to help with an emergency service. They might do that as well as seek to persuade him not to work. They might be outside the house saying, "Come to work". How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain that?

The Solicitor-General: There is no change in the basic law save in just one respect. For, in order to qualify for consideration for the possibility of prosecution under the 1875 Act, one has to be shown to be watching or besetting with a view to compelling somebody—[Interruption.] And the offence arises only where one is watching or besetting with a view to compelling. There is no possibility of it in any of the circumstances which hon. Members have put to me. If somebody comes to my home, or to the home of any one of them, knocks at the door and says, "I would like to have a talk with you about what is going on at the works"—the pithead, or whatever it may be—" and explain that this is what was happening", he is not within a thousand miles of an offence under the 1875 Act. It is only if persons are assembled watching or besetting with a view to compel that the offence begins


to arise. This is so with the proviso in the 1875 Act and the proviso in the 1906 Act and the re-enacted proviso here. All we are saying is that this proviso should not prevail in respect of the home.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): rose—

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry. I ought not to give way. I must proceed.

Mr. Lewis: I can give examples—

The Solicitor-General: I have been given a very large number of examples by hon. Members and I am trying to deal with them.
It is now said that the provisions of the the 1906 Act had remained unchanged and nobody had seen any need of change at all. It is not so. The 1927 Act removed the home from the area of presumed legitimate picketing. The 1929–31 Labour Government introduced legislation to amend the 1927 Act—and one can look at that to see the areas which they thought it necessary to put right—and did not do so. That wlel-known, hardfaced, punitive Tory, Sir Stafford Cripps, who was then holding the office of Solicitor-General, introduced that Bill. One of the areas of the 1927 Act which the 1930 Bill not seek to change was the provision saying that the presumption of legitimacy in respect of picketing at the home should be removed. The situation was tolerated by that strange predecessor of mine in 1930. So we come back to the argument of principle.
Are hon. Gentlemen opposite standing by some of the phrases used by them in support of the proposition that picketing at a person's home should have this blanket blessing conferred upon it?

Mr. John Mendelson: Nobody said that. The Solicitor-General is putting words into our mouths.

The Solicitor-General: I am wondering about that. Let us be clear, we are dealing with the presumed legitimacy of picketing at home. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said that we are "attacking the only weapon of trade unionism", we are placing "an onerous restriction upon it". We are attacking, so the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, "the basic philosophy of trade unionism".

The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) referred to "the foundation of good trade unionism". Is this really so? Is it to be said to the country that the proposition that the right to picket a person's home is at the heart of trade unionism?

Mr. Orme: The Solicitor-General is using emotive phrases in answer to our case, but he has not yet given any evidence why the law should be changed. We are fearful that the change in the law proposed is the thin edge of the wedge for attacking the basis of picketing.

The Solicitor-General: I will answer the hon. Gentleman in this way. As the nation and hon. Members will have seen with their own eyes on television on more than one occasion in recent months, there is something in the nature of picketing that is capable so easily of spilling over into abuse, intimidation and violence. I will quote to the Committee something which was written some time ago but which is still valid:
The truth is that picketing—however conducted—when it consists of watching or besetting the house, and it is to be observed that the statute places no limit to the number of persons attending for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information or to the length of time during which such attendance may be maintained—is always and of necessity in the nature of an annoyance to the person picketed. As such, it must savour of compulsion. … It is obvious how easy it must be to pass from the language of persuasion into that of abuse, and from words of abuse to threats and acts of violence.
All that is self-evident from what we have seen in incidents away from people's homes in recent months. The quotation comes, not from some stiff-backed hard-faced Tory but from the unanimous report of the Royal Commission which reported in 1905, one of the members of which, and one of the signatories of that paragraph, was that astonishing dragon of the trade union movement, Sidney Webb.

Mr. Harold Walker: I do not want the Solicitor-General to misrepresent my speech of last evening by picking out selected quotations from it. Nothing in my speech either condoned or supported abuse, intimidation or violence in picketing. I was saying that the main weapon available to trade unionists was strike action and that picketing was one of the ancillaries which the trade union had


to support it. Anything which diminishes, in the way in which the Solicitor-General admits that this Clause diminishes, that right to picket must inevitably blunt the strike weapon.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point with such clarity. The strike weapon is a weapon of trade unionism —certainly, clear. Picketing is a weapon of the organisation of a strike—certainly, clear. Many people outside the House could argue that the way in which the law at present operates to restrain that which people on all sides deplore, namely, the spill-over into violence represents that it is already inadequate. Many people have argued that we should go further than we are proposing and restrict in some way the right to picket. We are not doing so. We are not blunting in any respect the existing provisions of the law about picketing at the work place or at any other place. The only area in which by this Clause we are blunting the strike weapon is by asserting that the home of the man who dissents from the majority view shall not be a place which can presumptively be beset. That is all.

Mr. John Mendelson: If the Solicitor-General is now arguing that many people have said that the existing provisions of the criminal law are not sufficient, he must produce evidence why the change is necessary. Donovan examined the evidence and said it was not.

The Solicitor-General: One comes back to the simple point. I think it was the hon. Member for Salford, West who said that it requires great courage to participate in strike action. I have no doubt that in many circumstances it does, but equally it cannot be gainsaid that it requires great courage to dissent from that, whatever one's view about it. I think it was the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) who said that the philosophy is that those who are not for us are against us. Be that so; be that the argument which could be addressed to the non-conformist when he tries to go to and from his work; be that the argument that could be addressed to him in the street or in the supermarket, without restraint, but surely he too is entitled to cherish his little shred of courage in his own home, and it is

only about that that we are concerned here.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have repeatedly come back to this phrase. Either the trade union movement needs not this protection in respect of picketing a person's home, in which case there can be no possible objection to the Clause as it stands, or the trade union movement regards it as an illegitimate blunting of the strike weapon, which I suggest is an inadmissible argument.
The provision legitimising picketing at a person's home is an unnecessary and unwarranted licence for intrusion into private domestic life, and I go along with the minority of the Donovan Commission, and so do my hon. Friends, in considering in such places it is quite unnecessary. The liberty to picket a person's home involves the risk of threats to his family which are quite unjustifiable and may cause much distress.
When a clock strikes 13 times it casts grave doubt on the accuracy or adequacy of everything it has previously said. On this Amendment the Opposition have struck 13 times and have exposed the inadequacy of their arguments.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Solicitor-General was quite right to say that everyone in the Committee would wish to see respected the privacy of a person in his own home and that such a right should continue without hindrance or interference by anyone. It goes almost without saying. The idea that the Englishman's home is his castle applies equally to the working class as to the aristocracy. The right to privacy and protection in our own home is something we all hold extremely dear. Trade unionists accept this as much as anyone else.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Opposition were making a great deal of this point and that in putting forward the Amendment they had made the clock strike 13 times. The hon and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends must explain to the Committee why it is considered to be essential that the law should be changed and to tell us what proof they have. We have had many emotive speeches, with talk of violence, and so on, but nobody in this Committee has given any concrete evidence why this


Clause is necessary and why the Amendment ought not to be agreed.

An Hon. Member: What about Pilkington?

Mr. Heffer: I will deal with Pilkington on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Section 7.4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 deals with any person who, with a view to compelling any other person from doing any act,
Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place".
Therefore, anybody who indulges in that sort of conduct and tries to intimidate a person or his wife or children, or injures his property, can be caught by the Act, and indeed has always been caught since 1875. No doubt in order to protect the right of peaceful picketing the provision says that
Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section.
In other words, it was essential to put in those words so that anyone who was carrying out peaceful communication could not be caught by those provisions, it was necessary to make that absolutely clear.
Those words were deleted in 1906 and were replaced by Section 2 of the 1906 Act which reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be…
Those words were clearly included so that there should be no doubt about picketing.
The Solicitor-General asks why we are now suspicious and why we are making a great thing of this matter. He says, since there have been no abuses, why do we want these words to be eliminated. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has either deliberately not understood the position or has misinformed the Committee. We want the words in, because if taken out this will not only diminish

the right of picketing, but will also not take account of the practical realities of the situation. Certain realities were pointed out by my hon. Friends involving houses which are inside the confines of pit or dock premises. For example, if insurance agents go on strike, since they operate from their own homes how will the other insurance agents communicate with the workers who might decide to scab? How are they to do it except by peaceful communication with them at their homes?
Another point hon. Gentlemen do not understand is that work in certain industries is farmed out to people's homes. How is communication to be carried out with those workers working in their own homes?

Mr. Eadie: What about the cottage industries?

Mr. Heffer: I do not mean only the cottage industries, but that is an example. There are other industries, in the Potteries and elsewhere, which are in the same situation. These are practical questions involving the situation where the place of work is also the place of residence. If because of this provision it is not possible to approach those workers at their place of residence, there is an argument as to whether it would be wrong to approach them.

Mr. Tom King: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, (Mr. Loughlin) did not get the point, but I thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) had got it.

Mr. Loughlin: Do not be arrogant.

Mr. King: I meant no offence to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, but I appreciate his difficulty. It is clear that the only point which is excluded is the residence or place in which he resides. If it is also the place of work, it will be included in the subsection.

Mr. Heffer: If I had the hon. Gentleman's absolute confidence that there would then be no legal argument in a court of law on this matter, I would cheerfully accept his point. But when the Solicitor-General, in a previous debate, was asked by one of his hon. Friends whether he could give an assurance that the words used by the Solicitor-General would be the same words uttered


by the judge concerned—I am paraphrasing but that was basically the point—the reply was that the Solicitor-General could not give that assurance; in other words, the judges and courts would decide. All sorts of judgments have arisen on the basis of law and have sought to interpret the law. We are worried when the provisions of a Measure are not clear and there can be argument about the interpretation of words. Why do hon. Members opposite wish these words to be taken out?
I refer to the bible of apparently everybody in this debate—the Donovan Report. Everybody seems keen to quote the Donovan Report for his text. Paragraph 876 of the Report says:
The following members of the Commission, namely. Lord Donovan, Lord Robens, Dame Mary Green and Sir George Pollock consider however that picketing should not be allowed at a person's home where this is not also his place of work.
They say that pickets "may cause … distress". They do not say that they would cause distress or that they have caused distress. Paragraph 887, which has been quoted from this side of the Committee but not from the benches opposite, states:
A majority of members consider that the Commission has had no evidence of abuse of the right to picket sufficient to justify such a restriction.
If there has been no abuse and no evidence of abuse, why should the Solicitor-General wish to delete these words if it is not to restrict the right of workers to picket? It is the thin end of the wedge.
We must be distrustful because of what the Solicitor-General said earlier. He said that the provision was removed from the Act in 1927 and that it was not put back by the minority Labour Government. There are arguments about whether there should ever have been a minority Labour Government. I have strong views about minority Labour Governments. They work even less well than some majority Labour Governments. When there was a majority Labour Government in 1946, this provision was reinstated because the trade union movement recognised it as essential and accepted that there was no abuse.
I hope that we shall have a brief debate on the Question, That the Clause stand

part of the Bill, so that we can deal with other points about violence and picketing and the extravagant language used by many hon. Members opposite which was totally unjustified. I urge the Committee to accept this sensible and important Amendment. If the Government are not prepared to accept it, we shall divide on it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Hooson: This debate illustrates better than any of the other debates on the Bill the very revealing approach which the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) adopted in the remarkable speech which he made in the early stages of our deliberations.
Although I entirely agree with the Solicitor-General about the Amendment and the justification for the Clause. I do not share his difficulty in appreciating the view expressed from this side of the Committee. As I understand it, the view of the Opposition is that the picketing of a man's home is distressing. Obviously it is to anybody who does not share the view of those taking part in the strike whose home is approached by a number of men. It is bound to be distressing. Because of it, a man often forsakes his own view and accepts the view of the group.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), in a moving speech, described the hardship which inevitably results from a strike. The Opposition's view is that essentially this is a matter of group freedom and that, although distress may be caused to an individual if his home is picketed, he must bear it in the interests of the freedom of the group. That is basically the view put forward by this side of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon Members are like a picketing line at the moment, but they will not intimidate me.

Mr. John Mendelson: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the ability to picket a man's home was very much part of the freedom to picket. Many hon. Members on this side of the Committee have made that point. They say that this is a right or privilege which those concerned with the trade union movement are reluctant to give up.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: They have had it for 65 years.

Mr. Hooson: I realise that. The other side of the coin is that in all these arguments there is a balance between the rights of the group and the rights of the individual. We have reached the stage in our civilisation when the rights of the individual should be paramount.

Mr. Dan Jones: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in the circumstances which we are discussing a blackleg may be committing injury to the community?

Mr. Hooson: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree with him.
On this point the trade union movement reminds me of the Church of England in the eighteenth century. One could not enter a university or take a degree at Oxford or Cambridge or hold any of the higher offices of the land unless one was a communicant of the Church of England. This was a highly conservative approach and it is now rife throughout the trade union movement. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said just now, as it has been a right for 65 years it must not be changed. What is that but excessive conservatism? The Opposition's approach is that whatever happens the trade union is the sacred cow of the realm: it must not be touched and its rights must not be infringed. Apparently, the individual can go to blazes and the rights of the group must be reflected in the trade union movement.

Mr. Loughlin: rose—

Mr. Hooson: I have not the slightest doubt about the Amendment. I have had doubts on some matters, and sometimes I have shared the view of this side of the Committee.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fernyhough: rose—

Mr. Hooson: It is no use right hon. and hon. Members sitting round me trying to intimidate me. I intend to stick to my viewpoint.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am trying to help the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hooson: I know what the right hon. Gentleman's help is like. However, I will give way to him.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. and learned Gentleman has contended that, because we on this side of the Committee have taken this line, we are being very conservative. However, does he know the history of the trade union movement? Does he know the kind of Government who were responsible for the Tolpuddle Martyrs?

Mr. Hooson: Yes, and that was a disgraceful episode. However, when Conservative Members in years gone by relied on history, they were rightly criticised by Liberals for doing so. By saying that the trade union movement has developed as it has because of past history and nothing should change, the Labour movement seems to be adopting the same approach as that which has been attacked so much in the past by those who share my creed.
Whatever the value of picketing to a trade union involved in a strike, if one accepts that innocent people are bound to be hurt, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) had the guts to admit, clearly a civilised society can do without situations where men's liberty is infringed and their wives and children are forced to share their distress.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has been picketed during his speech. He is a lawyer. Will lie agree that he has been peacefully picketed?

Mr. Hooson: Certainly.

Mr. Eadie: Then what is he complaining about?

Mr. Hooson: I was not complaining. I was merely commenting. This happens to be not the place where I reside, and my wife and children are not here to appreciate the peaceful attempts by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting round me.
Another point which appeared on the face of it to have some substance was where a man's place of work and where he resides are so close together that it is impossible to disengage them. However, I remind the Committee that the word "or" separates paragraphs (a) and


(b). If one examines a given case and reaches the conclusion that it falls within paragraph (a), there is no need to consider paragraph (b) at all.
I think that the Solicitor-General is right in his interpretation, and that the only substantive argument advanced in favour of the Amendment does not stand investigation. For that reason, I have no doubt the way in which I will vote on this matter. I am entirely against the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about the arguments which have been adduced. I hope that I do not do him any injustice, but I do not think that he was present to hear my speech last night when I moved the Amendment. It is as though he has come into court half way through a case. He has criticised the arguments which he has heard. However, none of them was advanced by me when I moved the Amendment. I wish that the hon. and learned Gentleman had read my speech before making his rather disparaging remarks.

Mr. Hooson: I agree that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech last night. I shall read it with interest. However, I have heard many of the speeches from this side of the Committee and, unless the hon. Gentleman disowns all of them, I have answered the arguments that I have heard.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It had been my intention to speak before we came to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If it had not been for the arrogance of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who came bowling into the Chamber and was fortunate enough to be called without having heard all the debate, I would not have delayed the Committee. But I was present during the whole of the debate last night and again today, hoping to be called.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made some disparaging remarks about the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends, and he concluded his speech by supporting the interpretation of the Solicitor-General. Let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that, while the individual has a right in this kind of case, so has the individual striker. He has the right to

see that what he is protecting with his colleagues is individually as well as collectively protected.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as though the family of the non-striker, the scab or the blackleg—this mythical heroic figure going against the wishes of his fellow workers, I admit, with courage—needs protection. However, it should not be forgotten that the family of a non-striker is getting the full benefit of his wages. What about the families of the strikers?
During the fish dock strike last year, men who scabbed got higher wages because of the inflated value of fish on the market. That is why they scabbed. It was greed, not courage, that made people go to work. That is what very often happens, and the hon. and learned Gentleman should realise it.
I come then to the interpretation put on the Clause by the Solicitor-General, with which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery agrees. The Solicitor-General did not deal with the case that I put forward last night, and we are entitled to an answer. The Clause refers
to
… where a person works or carries on business …".
How is that provision to be applied to the case where scabs are invited to a meeting place before they go to work? Often it is the only place where it is possible to get at scabs. A person is neither working nor carrying on business at such a place. It is merely where the group of scabs congregates before going to work. During the recent strike to which I referred just now, scabs came off vessels, immediately climbed aboard lorries and closed vans and disappeared in different directions all over the East Riding. The strikers had to follow them in order to find out who they were and to explain the position to them. The scabs could only be found at their homes. Employers told them to leave their homes and not go to their normal place of work but, instead, to go to, say, Scarborough or Bridlington and join a ship there. Where would strikers have been able to picket in those circumstances?
Clearly the arguments put forward by the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery are not good enough. They do not know what it is all about.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 251, Noes 298.

Division No. 196.
AYES
[5.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Albu, Austen
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth


Allen, Scholefield
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mayhew, Christopher


Ashley, Jack
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Molloy, William


Bidwell, Sydney
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Murray, Ronald King


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Horam, John
Oram, Bert


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Pendry, Tom


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Pentland, Norman


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Roper, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kerr, Russell
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyre)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, George
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Small, William


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Eadle, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackie, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tomney, Frank


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Foot, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tuck, Raphael


Ford, Ben

Urwin, T. W.




Varley, Eric G.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Wainwright, Edwin
Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Watkins, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. John Golding.


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Kilfedder, James


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Farr, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Astor, John
Fell, Anthony
Kinsey, J. R.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fidler, Michael
Kirk, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kitson, Timothy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knox, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lambton, Antony


Balniel, Lord
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Batsford, Brian
Fox, Marcus
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gailbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gardner, Edward
Longden, Gilbert


Benyon, W.
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McLaren, Martin


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boscawen, Robert
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gray, Hamish
Madel, David


Braine, Bernard
Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Bray, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mather, Carol


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bryan, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bullus, Sir Erie
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Havers, Michael
Money, Ernie


Channon, Paul
Hay, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mudd, David


Cooke, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar


Coombs, Derek
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cooper, A. E.
Holt, Miss Mary
Neave, Airey


Cormack, Patrick
Hooson, Emlyn
Nicholls, Sir Harmar



Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Crouch, David
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Curran, Charles
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Osborn, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pardoe, John


Dean, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
James, David
Percival, Ian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dixon, Piers
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pounder, Rafton


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Eden, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Elliot. Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Quennell, Miss J. M.







Raison, Timothy
Skeet, T. H. H.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Soref, Harold
van. Straubenzee, W. R.


Redmond, Robert
Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Spence, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Steel, David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wall, Patrick


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Julian
Shoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Sutcliffe, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tapsell, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rost, Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wiggin, Jerry


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wilkinson, John


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tebbit, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Temple, John M.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Worsley, Marcus


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Simeons, Charles
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Sinclair, Sir George
Trew, Peter
Mr. Walter Clegg.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 874, in page 84, line 3, leave out 'of itself'.

The Deputy Chairman: It would beconvenient if we also discussed Amendment No. 875, in line 8, leave out 'of itself'.

Mr. Fraser: In replying to the last Amendment the Solicitor-General said that there was nothing in the Bill, apart from the picketing of a person's home, which blunted the strike weapon or the right to picket. This Amendment seeks to explore what we on this side of the Committee suspect will be a considerable blunting of the right to picket. To understand the significance of the Amendment and the wording of the Clause we have to examine the history of the words "picketing" and "persuasion", starting with Section 2(1) of the 1906 Act. The wording there is:
It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works …".
The wording "it shall be lawful" gives an imprimatur of legality to the act of picketing. The 1906 Act, including Section 2(1), would be repealed by this Bill, and, therefore, we do not have the words "it shall be lawful". There is there a clear and unequivocal statement of legality which has been taken out.
We then have to go back to Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, which says:

Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority,—
4. watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place …shall, on conviction … by a court of summary jurisdiction or on indictment … be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour.
The reason why the declaration of legality was put in the 1906 Act was it could be construed, if one were construing only Section 7 of the 1875 Act, that the act of persuasion was also with a view to compelling someone. The words
with a view to compel
are wide and difficult to interpret, and the act of persuasion in itself could be construed by a court as an act of compulsion.
We are thrown back, having got rid of the 1906 wording, on the 1875 Act, as varied by the Bill. What is significant about the wording of Clause 121(2) is that it does not reproduce these words "it shall be lawful". It plays about with the wording. Why is this other word used when instances are given in which picketing can take place? Then, it says that it
shall not of itself constitute an offence
and:
shall not of itself constitute a tort.


6.15 p.m.
The words "of itself" can have only one interpretation. What they mean is that, while it shall not of itself constitute an offence or a tort if there is something else present, then it could constitute an offence and a tort. How else can we interpret it? Clause 121 talks about peaceful persuasion, peaceful communicating. How else can something which is peaceful become a tort or an offence? There must be some other ingredient which can be added to the act of picketing and peaceful persuasion making it in some way or other unlawful. There must be some circumstances where the trade union application of peaceful persuasion can constitute an offence.
We have to try to find the catalyst, the hidden ingredient, which turns the act of peaceful persuasion into a tort or an offence. I suggest that that catalyst is the strike which is an unfair industrial practice. There is no doubt that any unfair industrial practice is an unlawful act in the civil sense of the word. It is not criminal but it is certainly unlawful. If the Bill becomes law it is something which is against the law and which gives rise to a claim for damages or compensation and to an injunction.
It could be the element of illegality which, added to the act of picketing, could make the matter into an offence. I suggested yesterday that someone who conspires to organise a strike which is an unfair industrial practice could be committing a tort. That might seem a farfetched proposition but in suggesting that I have the support of the Solicitor-General, who, in winding up the debate on Clause 117 yesterday, said:
The provisions of Clause 117 are designed for two purposes. They are designed to meet the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, namely the possibility of new torts being invented in an Industrial relations situation.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted there the possibility of a new tort being created. He went on:
If a new tort begins to be invented in relation to an industrial relations matter, we are not in favour of encouraging that kind of invention or growth when it can be dealt with in the context of the National Industrial Relations Court …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1971; Vol. 812, c. 432.]
The point that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted is that new kinds of illegal act can be created and there could be, in the context of this Amendment, a

new tort of conspiracy to incite or induce an unfair industrial practice which takes place when someone persuades another person to stay away from work when the strike in which he is being persuaded to take part is of itself an unfair industrial practice. Otherwise, I do not see why he should change the wording in the 1906 Act and use this particularly limited form of words and say that only in certain circumstances shall it not of itself constitute an offence or a tort.
If the Committee accepts this, then it must support the Amendment. There is a whole serious of unfair industrial practices which might constitute a form of illegality which would then make picketing unlawful. The Committee must understand how far this goes. For instance, in some circumstances it is an unfair industrial practice in support of an unfair industrial dispute to persuade someone to come out on strike. When we look at the definition of "strike" in Clause 148, it is a concerted stoppage of work. There could be a situation when people are acting unlawfully, when they come out on strike and generally break their contracts of employment. If all give notice to end their contracts of employment, up to now that has not been considered unlawful. It has not even been considered to be in breach of agreement because the notice required under the terms of the agreement had been given.
Under the terms of the Bill that is still a strike which could be unlawful in certain circumstances, even though the people are doing something perfectly lawful in itself. We get to the stage when in the course of picketing to use persuasion which is of itself peaceful to do something which is of itself lawful could nevertheless be an offence or tort because of the wording and the inclusion of the words "of itself" in this subsection.
The Solicitor-General owes the Committee a thorough explanation of the reasons why these words appear in this form and why the words "it shall be lawful" are not reproduced from the 1906 Act. If he is not able to give us that explanation, the words "of itself" could be a detonator inside this legislation which could spark off a legal minefield. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman must give a clear assertion


to the Committee that picketing in support of what he terms an unfair industrial practice will in future be completely lawful and will not be in any way impinged upon by the residual legislation from the 1875 Act which still remains in effect, in a slightly changed form, under the terms of the Clause.

The Solicitor-General: I will deal, first, with the form of words about which the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) spoke. The provisions of the 1906 Act are reproduced here, with the exception concerning the picketing of a person's home, with which the Committee has dealt. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, there is a variation from the earlier wording of "it shall be lawful" to "it shall not of itself".
The object of this change in relation to subsection (2)(a), which is concerned only with the 1875 Act, is to preserve the effect of the 1875 Act but over the smaller area; in other words, as under the 1875 Act the appearance of pickets under Clause 121(1) is in no way capable of amounting to an offence under that Act, there is no change whatever in that provision.
As for the reference to the law of tort, I take the example which was given by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) when we discussed the last Amendment. He cited the case of a picket who shouted the word "quisling" at somebody who was strike-breaking or leading a group of strike-breakers.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Might he not shout "Conservative"?

The Solicitor-General: To take the hon. Gentleman's example, a picket might shout "Conservative" at a strike-breaker—no doubt because, in the view of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), there are some areas of the country where it might be considered defamatory so to describe a person. A person so described would be misguided to seek to bring an action and would be unlikely to have his claim sustained by a jury. However, the hon. Gentleman can advance that argument.
The mere presence of the people constituting a picket line for the purpose of peacefully persuading others would not of itself constitute a tort, but one cannot

exclude the possibility that a person so described might want to commence proceedings for slander. He would not get much damages if he won. He would certainly not get legal aid to proceed or be advised to bring such an action.
However, there might be a substantial situation when there has been, say, an assault and the person there involved might wish to bring civil proceedings for assault. All of those things would go beyond the presence of a picket under Clause 121(1) and would constitute a separate ground for bringing proceedings in tort. The words "of itself" in subsection (2)(b) are designed to make it plain that if somebody goes beyond what has been permitted, then he is back with the ordinary law of the land. The purpose of subsection (2) in its entirety is to reproduce in the ordinary courts the position as it prevailed up to the passing of this Measure.
The hon. Member for Norwood harked back to the debate which took place last night on Clause 117 and suggested that there might be here the grounds of some new formulation of a new tort of conspiracy. The subsection as it stands makes plain that the presence of pickets in the conventional way cannot of itself constitute a tort. It is, therefore, difficult to see how a conspiracy to post such pickets could be a conspiracy to fulfil a lawful purpose by an unlawful means, and so be a fresh tort.
However, even if it were sought to bring that complaint in the ordinary courts, by Clauses 117 or 118 it would not be possible to proceed with it in the ordinary courts. There are, therefore, double checks to the establishment of a new conspiratorial tort of picket-posting, if I may put it that way.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to picket-posting and asks permission to describe it as such. Is he aware that the words he uses must be interpreted by people outside the Committee and that they may eventually mean something in a court of law? Does a picket cease to be a picket if he is not posted? Must he wear a distinguishing mark when he is posted? If not, will he be considered to be a fellow worker or trade union official?
What will happen if he seeks to persuade others to strike, not necessarily


at their place of work but perhaps on his way to work or elsewhere, remembering that his exclusion depends on a narrow form of words and that previous legislation has not defined what a picket is? One has visions of people being posted to do certain tasks in a regimental way, but things do not happen quite in that manner and we would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain when a picket is not a picket?

The Solicitor-General: I am not using the word in a mystical sense as a term of art. The hon. Member for Norwood raised this point in this context and I borrowed the phrase from him.
Aside from the 1875 Act and the law of tort, in the context of this Measure we have a number of Clauses in which it is made plain that the organisation for or inducing of an unfair industrial action is something in respect of which a remedy will be available. If as part of the organisation for or inducing of an unfair strike or industrial action it can be shown that somebody has posted—and I use the word in that sense here—people with the intention that they should be his instrument for bringing about that unfair industrial practice or action, then that would be part of the evidence that could be brought against the person organising their presence.
This could arise in a variety of ways, and the provisons of the Bill apply right across the board in respect of the unfair practices which we have identified, but they do not change the ordinary law so far as it applies outside. That is the intention.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. and learned Gentleman is explaining that there are circumstances in which picketing could be part of an unfair industrial practice—as part of the process of inducing a strike —and that it could, therefore, lead to the apprehension of people and their appearance before the National Industrial Relations Court because picketing would be

evidence of the fact that they had induced the strike.

If that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, then is he aware that he lets in the criminal sanctions contained in the 1875 Act, for it could be argued that they were acting wrongfully under the terms of the opening words of Section 7 of that Act? In those circumstances, they would be open to civil proceedings in the National Industrial Relations Court and to criminal proceedings as well because they would be acting wrongfully under the 1875 Act.

The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because it takes us back to Section 7 of the 1875 Act, which refers to:
Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do
something. In other words, he must do it with a view to compelling, and there is no question of any presence of a picket infringing the 1875 Act.
For the reasons I have explained, the provisions originally contained in Section 7, transferred to the 1906 Act and carried over to this Measure, mean that the presence of a picket everywhere except at somebody's home places that presence in exactly the same state, from the point of view of the 1875 Act, as it always would have been. In other words, that presence cannot of itself constitute an offence under that Act.
It would be necessary, as always, to show that the person was acting with a view to compel, in one or other of the prescribed ways, and here we have the question of using violence, intimidation and so on. There can, therefore, be no change in the provisions of the 1875 Act or in the ordinary law of tort, and I invite the Committee to conclude that the Amendment is not necessary and would not improve the Bill.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 299.

Division No. 197.]
AYES
[6.29 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Albu, Austen
Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.


Allen, Scholefield
Barnes, Michael
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Barnett, Joel
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Ashley, Jack
Beaney, Alan
Booth, Albert




Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Halloran, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Bert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horam, John
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(EdgeHill)
Pendry, Tom


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Greville
Pentland, Norman


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Re[...]


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;Radnor)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lawson, George
Sillars, James


Dempsey,James
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Leonard, Dick
Small, William


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Spearing, Nigel


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom
McBride, Neil
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McGuire, Michael
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,LadyWood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackie, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Torney, Tom


Foot, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tuck, Raphael


Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm
Urwin, T. W.


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian
Whitehead, Phillip


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Eadie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)



Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr Ernest Armstrong and


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Hattersley, Roy
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Atkins, Humphrey
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Awdry, Daniel
Balniel, Lord







Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberd'nshire,W.)


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Green, Alan
Moate, Roger


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Molyneaux, James


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernie


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gummer, Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper


Bray, Ronald
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar


Bruce-Gardyne J.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bryan, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Buck, Antony
Havers, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hay, John
Onslow, Cranley


Burden, F. A.
Hayhoe, Barney
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Osborn, John


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Heseltine, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Pardoe, John


Channon, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Churchill, W. S.
Hooson, Emlyn
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cooke, Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Coombs, Derek
Howell, David (Guildford)
pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cordle, John
Hunt, John
Raison, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Critchley, Julian
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crowder, F. P.
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul
Kilfedder, James
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dixon, Piers
Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kitson, Timothy
Rost, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Antony
St. John-Stevan, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Simeons, Charles


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Soref, Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Spence, John


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
Maddan, Martin
Steel, David


Fraser,Rt.Hn.H ugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fry, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.


Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Gibson-Watt, David

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom




Sutcliffe, John







Tapsell, Peter
Tugendhat, Christopher
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Tebbit, Norman
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Waddington, David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodnutt, Mark


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Worsley, Marcus


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wall, Patrick
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hn. George


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Ward, Dame Irene



Tilney, John
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Trew, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Walter Clegg.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: We oppose the Clause because it will lead to a limitation of the right to picket. The Bill will take away certain rights which have been regarded as rights, at any rate by the trade union movement, and it will put us back into the pre-1875 position.
During the debates on the Amendments to the Clause one or two hon. Members opposite painted a picture of violence and intimidation which bore no relation to the facts. Violence has occurred in disputes and as a result of picketing. I quote from the report of Chief Superintendent A. E. Clark, of the Liverpool Police, who was delegated to inquire into the complaints regarding the ill-treatment of certain pickets by the Stockport police during the Roberts Arundel strike:
I do not consider that the relative responsibilities of the three officers allegedly concerned in this assault can be separated and I would submit that they have a case to answer for 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm'.
The position arising from that report was that the three victims of the police assault were paid damages by the police. Allen received £1,322 for a spinal injury and a broken nose. Heywood got £583 for a broken nose and a battered face. Cook got £375 for a broken nose, body injuries and subsequent mental anxiety.
I do not want to make a great point of this. I merely point out that violence emerges, and it has emerged, unfortunately, on both sides—or on three sides, if one can put it that way—in industrial disputes.
The Opposition are totally opposed to violence emerging from any quarter in picketing. We are opposed to the concept of violence. We have always be

lieved, as the trade union movement believes, that one must be able peacefully to picket to persuade one's fellow workers.
We have been told that there was a great deal of violence at Pilkingtons. I want to quote from the book "Strike at Pilkingtons" by two academics from Liverpool University—Tony Lane and Kenneth Roberts. They analysed the Press reports which arose from the Pilkington dispute and gave two or three examples:
…the Financial Times gave a fuller report, but it could not have been said on this occasion that the Mirror was sober. Its story was not, strictly speaking, inaccurate for there were as a matter of fact several scuffles but the impression was nevertheless created that there was fighting on a large scale. Sentences such as 'Police reinforcements were rushed in as violence flared' suggested a sense of urgency and confrontations of some magnitude—a sense that the situation could not have justified.
Hon. Members who speak about violence in disputes and violence as a result of picketing accept what a large body of the Press writes: a sober study of the evidence shows that there is little in the allegation.
6.45 p.m.
The authors say on page 171 of "Strike at Pilkingtons":
Relationships with the police and the Pilkington security men seemed to have been amicable when things were quiet; they talked and drank tea with the pickets. No doubt the odd bobby was grateful for the warmth of a brazier on a cold night and a bit of company to relieve the tedium of the night patrol.
That puts the matter into perspective. Allegations of constant violence in disputes are not borne out by the facts. The facts are that the British working class and trade union movement is a very responsible and peacefully organised movement, and violence is alien to the concept of the movement. When, unfortunately, there has been trouble, it has usually arisen when scabs and blacklegs have been protected by the police. It is


at the stage when people are trying to go against the democratic decision of the workers that there have been inflamed actions on the part of some workers and then often on the part of the police as well.
We do not accept the contention that there is great violence in the trade union movement. We oppose the Clause because it is a limitation of the rights of picketing. It holds further dangers. Anyone distributing leaflets and issuing a call for attendance at a meeting could be held to be acting contrary to the Clause.
The evil thought creeps into my mind that there are people who would suggest that the scope of the Clause should be extended and that perhaps political canvassing should be covered at some stage. Hon. Members opposite always say that we exaggerate and that we see more in these Clauses than is there. I wish that I did not have the distrust of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that I have. Bitter experience of the activities of the Tory Party leads my right hon. Friends and myself to the conclusion that in order to preserve and extend our democracy we must be constantly vigilant. It is important that in our bid to extend our democratic rights we oppose Clauses of this nature which take away part of the democratic rights which have been with us since before 1875. Those rights are now being limited and we are being put back into the pre-1875 position.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a good case for retaining something which has been with us for a very long time, on the basis that if we have had it for long enough there is no reason to change it. That is a rather Luddite attitude because, look as I may at the Clause, I cannot tie it up with most of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
In the debates on the Amendments to the Clause it was suggested that the Clause would prevent the normal activities that have been carried on and that are still carried on by those who are in dispute with their employers. There has been a great deal of argument about this. Hon. Members opposite have challenged the allegation that violence has occurred. Hon. Members opposite have always stated that there is no

evidence that violence has occurred. All I can say is that in my constituency there has been sufficient evidence to show that violence has occurred and that cars have been wrecked and men's wives threatened with having acid thrown in their faces.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Mawby: I have only just started, but I will give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member has just said that he has evidence of a number of very serious crimes that have been threatened against individuals in his constituency. Can he produce the names of the people concerned, the occasions, the places—evidence of both threats and action that the police have taken, and of reports that have been made? It is important that the Committee should be able to evaluate what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not expect me to have all these facts in my possession at this moment—

Mr. J.D. Concannon: Oh, yes.

Mr. Mawby: All I can say is that the complaints were registered with the local police, who have all the information concerning these matters.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Have the police taken proceedings? They should have done.

Mr. Mawby: The police have not taken proceedings. [Interruption.] Whether hon. Members opposite think that it is up to me to decide whether or not the police should institute proceedings is another matter. All I am doing is to put the facts before the House.

Mr. Concannon: They are not facts.

Mr. Mawby: I was going on to say—if hon. Members opposite had allowed me to do so—that these things happen.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: rose—

Mr. Mawby: May I say six words in a row before there is an intervention? I am saying that neither I nor any other sensible person would have been prepared to say that all those cases provided definite evidence of the activities of


bona fide trade unionists pursuing their objectives. There will always be the person who commits violence acts or makes threats but who is not connected with the dispute. All I am saying is that there is the danger that violence will occur.
The Clause gives reasonable rights to the majority; it is, those who decide that there is a dispute and go on strike, and want to make certain that those who carry on working will be given the reasons for the dispute and be asked to join or rejoin their colleagues who have stopped work. Nothing in the Clause prevents the normal, orderly procedure of a group of people in dispute notifying their colleagues of the reason for that dispute, and trying to obtain their support.
Until now we have been talking as if all strikes were brought about by the officials of a union saying, "We are in difficulties. We are going out on strike. This is an official strike which has the majority of our members behind it." We are not talking about those strikes. The majority of strikes that take place are brought about by relatively small groups of people, often against the advice of their own trade unions. They come out on an unofficial basis. The men who are still at work are not scabs or blacklegs; they can legitimately say that they are following the advice of their trade union executive.
No hon. Member opposite can tell me that occasions do not arise when, although the union executive says, "There is no reason for this strike, because of this, that and the other. Therefore we are not recommending our members to come out on strike," a group of people come out on unofficial strike. Those who remain at work in those circumstances are probably better trade unionists than the men on strike, but hon. Members opposite suggest that we should perpetuate the system in which those on strike can intimidate the ones who remain at work following the advice of the trade union executive.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Member referred to a dispute that occurred in his constituency. He would not mention the name of the company concerned, but I believe that he was referring to the

Centrax dispute. He made some hard and constructive efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to that strike. Am I right in thinking that that is the strike to which he referred?

Mr. Mawby: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: Was not that dispute essentially concerned with the refusal of the employer to recognise the trade union?

Mr. Mawby: Several issues were involved, but when that dispute occurred the three main unions, the E.T.U., the Transport and General Workers' Union and the A.E.F.—now the A.E.U.—were all recognised for negotiating purposes by the local management. Basically it was not a strike to obtain recognition. The strikers did not think that the management was prepared to give them sufficient recognition, but the district officials of the unions concerned were recognised, and negotiated from time to time.
Apart from that fact, the important point is that a man who had no intention of being either a scab or a blackleg could be intimidated. A group of his fellow workers might have gone on strike contrary to the union's advice, and might be taking steps to make certain that their fellow workers also came out on strike.
If the whole future of the trade union movement relies on that sort of intimidation many people will ask whether the movement is worth saving anyway. We therefore come back to the fundamentals. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) put his finger right on the point when he referred to the need to preserve a balance—to make certain that the majority has its rights but that at no time shall it have such rights as to allow it to intimidate not only a man but also his wife and family.
Basically, the Clause is necessary. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may say that under other parts of the Bill there will probably not be the same incidence of unofficial strikes and that as the problem grows less there is less need for this Clause. If that be so, all we are doing here is jamming the sandwich a little too much, but it will be none the worse for that. I regard the Clause as essential because it lays down that the ordinary individual in his home with his


family shall not be liable to intimidation by any body of people, whoever they may be.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: The Clause does not say that. Even on the Solicitor-General's interpretation of it, with which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) agreed, if a worker resides at his work place or his usual place of business, and that is the place to be picketed, the protection which is so dear to the hon. Gentleman does not apply. So there is a lack of consistency there.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman has done his usual hair-splitting act. If a person resides at his place of work, then, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery pointed out, it is a case of "either/or", and in such circumstances it would be regarded as a place of work rather than a place of residence. It would take a Solomon to draft a Clause to cover the case of a person living above the shop, which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) suggested. But, in the nature of things, we cannot, unfortunately, cover absolutely everything. If it is a man's place of work, obviously the balance comes back again because one returns to the point that those who are in dispute with their employer ought to be able peacefully to picket at the place of work and so convey information to those who are not on strike and do whatever they can in a peaceful fashion.
The problem of the person who happens to live at his place of work is, I suggest, highly marginal. Those who choose not to do that but to live in their own homes, having their family around them, believe that they have a right, for example, if someone wants to call and sell them encyclopaedias, to show him the gate and say, "I shall set the dog on you if you do not leave. This is my home, and I will not be intimidated by anyone trying to flog me encyclopaedias, or, for that matter, someone trying to tell me what I ought to do in my place of work. This is my private residence, and I maintain that right."
Every British citizen whatever his walk of life, has the right to demand that he be free in his own home from the intimidation which he might encounter on the streets, in the supermarket or at

his place of work. Therefore, assuming that right hon. and hon. Members opposite mean what they say, this Clause, far from being a damaging one, is a valid and reasonable provision which will retain the sort of balance which any of us who talk about democracy should approve.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: The purpose of the Clause is stated clearly in the Explanatory Memorandum:
Clause 121 removes the protection formerly given by section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 in respect of picketing a person's home —".
So the purpose is to remove a protection which the trade union movement has had for 65 years.
One would have expected the Government to produce, or try to produce, a good argument to justify this change. But what is different in 1971 from 1961, 1951 or any year back to 1906? Have the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General been inundated with letters from employees who have been intimidated in their homes by trade union pickets? What special circumstances have arisen in 1971 to make the Government believe that now is the time to take away a protection which has existed since 1906?
Incidentally, I remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that it was a Liberal Government which passed the 1906 Act. He accuses me of being conservative and wanting to go back to the past. The Liberal politicians of 1906 would turn in their graves if they saw the present caricature of a Liberal Party supporting the Tories in trying to dismantle the 1906 Act, which for the first time gave protection to trade unionists for peaceful picketing.
We are told that there has been a deterioration in standards in recent years and that there is more violence about, though we have been given no evidence for this. I am sure that society was more violent in 1906 than it is in 1971. But, it is said, because society generally is deteriorating it is rational to introduce a restriction of this kind.
No one has pinpointed a single incident in which Section 2 of the 1906 Act has been abused. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) could not give the names and addresses of people who have


been intimated. Why, then, is this provision being railroaded through now?
The real answer is that many hon. Members opposite are against the idea of any picketing and would like to abolish it altogether. As a sop to them, knowing that that would be impossible under any law, the Secretary of State has said, "Let us stop it in one particular instance and say that there shall be no picketing where an employee resides".
It is not always necessary for trade unions to picket at the residence of an employee, but there are circumstances which make it essential. A trade union official calls a strike. He has to be certain of 100 per cent. backing, or near-100 per cent. backing, for the strike. The first thing that people on strike do is to elect pickets. There may be a dozen or 20, or it may be a mass picket in which every individual striker is regarded as a picket. Incidentally, no definition is given in Clause 148 or anywhere else of what a picket really is.
If there are people who do not know of the decision to strike—perhaps they are on the night shift—the trade union official will say, "Let us have pickets outside the factory to advise these people that we are on strike and to explain the reasons". But there may well be others whom he cannot contact by this method; some may be at out-stations, some may be engaged on fitting a ship five miles down the river, and others may be engaged on construction work at a site 20 miles away from the factory. In order to tell and peacefully persuade these people, it is necessary to picket outside their homes and say, "This is the situation. We are in dispute with the management. The union has called a strike. and we want you to come out with us".
That has been permissible in the past. With his "smoothie-chops" approach, the Solicitor-General tells us that nobody will be intimidated under the Clause and that nobody will suffer. He tries to give the impression that this is a benevolent piece of legislation by which no one will be caught. Unfortunately, the people given authority under the Bill to interpret the law do not read Committee stage speeches. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman might say that this is a benevolent piece of legislation, that it is very tolerant, and that the Government intend

that a person merely conversing with a colleague in his house will get through the net, that will not be the interpretation of those given authority to impose penalties under the Bill.
The Clause says that anyone
peacefully communicating information
to an employee,
or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work
can do that in certain places, but not where the employee resides. On any interpretation of that, a picket who goes to a person's home to communicate to him information about a strike is guilty of an offence. Whatever plausible explanation is given, we shall have a judges' law, with cases built on cases, and so on, until no one can approach the home of a would-be striker without being in defiance of the law.
That is one argument by the Government, the argument that we must stop people being intimidated by trade unions calling a strike, though no evidence has been given that they are intimidated.
The other argument called in aid is that four members of the Donovan Commission were in favour of a review of Section 2 of the 1906 Act. It is very strange that when it suits the purposes of the Solicitor-General he can quote the Donovan Report, but if it does not suit his purpose he can quote the minority. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said that the report has been regarded in these debates as a bible. The Under-Secretary said that even Lord Donovan supported the minority, which seemed to me as though he was trying to make out a case that Lord Donovan is God Almighty, calling him in aid with the minority to substantiate his case. He seems to believe firmly in the proposition that all men are equal, but that some men are more equal than others. The majority, eight of the 12 members of the Commission, reviewed the matter very carefully and said that there are no grounds for amending the 1906 Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The hon. Gentleman's case would be far stronger if there had been a complete recommendation from Donovan. It was split on the issue.

Mr. Fletcher: Of course it was split. In every instance where there are a majority and a minority report a commission or committee is split. My point is that two-thirds of the Commission, after considering the matter very carefully, said that in their view the protection the unions have enjoyed for 65 years should be continued.
So the two arguments in support of the Clause—intimidation, which cannot be proved, and the minority Donovan Report—do not hold water. It is not we but the Government who are in the dock. They owe the Committee an explanation why a protection enjoyed for 65 years is now being taken away. We have listened intently but have not had that explanation. The best thing the Government can do is to withdraw the Clause.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said that many Conservative hon. Members are against all forms of picketing. I have heard nothing in the Committee so far that gives the slightest justification for that assumption. I will perhaps now give the hon. Gentleman some slight justification. It is not that I shall oppose picketing, but I will say a word or two to the effect that the right to picket now requires a certain regulation.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Why now?

Sir A. Meyer: I shall come to that shortly.
Both sides have accepted that, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said, instances of violence in the use of picketing are almost unknown in our society. I do not think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said in any way disagreed with that, because he was at pains to point out that the case to which he referred could very well have been touched off by people who were not acting within the authority of their union. But between violence and the idyllic language of the Clause, where we talk about
the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information to him or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work.

there is a whole gamut of possibilities. A large section of that gamut could be covered by the word "intimidation".
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes let slip a very telling phrase which no one seemed to pick up at the time. He talked about the normal intimidation we meet in streets or supermarkets. It is a fact of life, recognised by most of us, that the kind of situation which results in a strike and pickets taking up positions is one in which there is a temptation to use intimidation. The intimidation can vary from threats of violence to merely the pushing of a face into the face of the person going to work.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Or threats from the employer.

Sir A. Meyer: My own daughter worked in the International Telephone Exchange, and, in the delicate language of hon. Members opposite, is no doubt to be called a blackleg or scab. She went to work not during the present postal strike, but during a strike two or three years ago. She says that she did not have to face any threats of violence but that it was extremely unpleasant having to walk through a line of pickets thrusting their faces into hers as she went past and calling her abusive names.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That may he unpleasant, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that many times so-called reputable employers have threatened to sack their workers and threatened that they will never take them back into employment? Is not that also rather reprehensible and worrying to the worker on strike? But I suppose that that is not intimidation.

Sir A. Meyer: It is very reprehensible, and it is one of the things that the Bill sets out to remedy. But discussion about that belongs elsewhere.
I am trying very hard not to adopt too partisan an attitude on the matter. Labour hon. Members feel passionately about the importance of enabling trade unions properly to defend the interests of their members. None of us who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) is likely to forget it. It was unforgettable for all of us who had the


privilege to hear it. He argued with extraordinary persuasion the importance of the unions having the ability to defend the interests of their members and the importance for the working class of solidarity. It was an extraordinarily moving performance, which gave a great many of my hon. Friends a fresher insight into the motivation of hon. Members opposite. But it was founded on a fallacy—not a discreditable fallacy but nevertheless a fallacy—based on what The Times today called,
… a romantic view of the trade unions as the representatives of the downtrodden".
The position of the trade unions today is not that of representatives of the downtrodden. It is much more accurately reflected in what the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) described when she spoke to the Institute of Directors some time ago. She said that power had now passed to the shop floor.

Mr. Orme: So it has.

Sir A. Meyer: It is true in a sense. One of the objectives of the Bill is to strengthen the responsible trade union leadership. Some hon. Members may think—although so far no one on this side has said it—that this is the wrong Bill and that we should be bringing in a Bill to make any combinations either of employers or of workpeople—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now relate his remarks to Clause 121 and not to the whole Bill?

Sir A. Meyer: I apologise. I will come back to the Clause.
Strong trade unions—and we want strong trade unions—cannot be based either on intimidation or on anything that could conceivably be represented as intimidation. Therefore, we must lean over backwards to ensure that this opportunity to ensure that there can be no possibility of intimidation, which will probably be the last for a long time, is not allowed to slip by.
I fully acknowledge that 1 have allowed it to slip by myself because I should have put down an Amendment at this stage. On Report, some of my hon. Friends intend to put down an Amendment asking that the right of picketing

should be regulated. We freely accept that the trade unions have an absolute right to ensure that any persons going to work at the time of a strike should be made aware that there is a dispute, and that arrangements must be made to allow representations to be made to people, if necessary in their own homes, to ensure that they are aware of the strike and of the issues involved. But I do not believe that this need necessarily involve more than two or three persons making such representations. There is a strong case for replacing the reference in this Clause to "one or more persons" by some such wording as "not more than two persons", or "three persons"—wherever may be appropriate. If such an Amendment were made, it would remove for ever any threat of intimidation, and I give notice that on Report I shall move an Amendment to that effect.

Mr. Hooson: Reference has not been made so far to the fact that the Clause re-enacts the old legal position as it existed in the 1906 Act and as it has existed since. There has been one exception. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has chided me and the Liberal Party for having been the authors of the 1906 Act and for having now committed an unforgivable sin by believing that we should change even a dot or comma of the Act. To him, apparently, that is a cardinal sin.
I do not know what motivates the Government, but I will say what motivates me in my approach. Picketing is a very important weapon in the hands of the trade unions and it is perfectly legitimate. We live in a real world and when there is a real dispute in industry leading to a strike, people naturally feel strongly. When picketing, therefore, they are bound to use robust language. We have to tolerate this. It is part of the legitimate weapon of argument. We have to accept it in the world in which we live.
The question facing us is what limits there should be to picketing. There has been gross exaggeration in the debate in relation to the question of intimidation. Violence is rarely used. The history of the British trade union movement is, considering what the unions had to bear, especially in the earlier days, one of remarkably peaceful progression. I do not think that anyone with any


knowledge will dispute that. Where there has been violence, it has usually occurred in very trying circumstances.
Nevertheless, we all know that picketing is a very distressing matter for the person picketed. We have to accept that that is so. It is a perfectly legitimate weapon—a weapon of persuasion just as much as mass propaganda in the Press is a weapon of persuasion. This is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). I think that we have to accept picketing, and I believe that the Secretary of State takes the same view.
But the one great difference is that it is not now going to be permissible to picket a man at his home unless—according to my legal interpretation—it also happens to be at his place of work. If I am wrong in my legal interpretation—I do not think that I am—I understand, from speeches made by the Government, that an Amendment would be acceptable on Report to put this right.
As I heard the debate, the one legitimate point concerned the example given by the hon. Member for Darlington of a mining village or a place where some of the houses are within the curtilage of the mine. One might in that case have a picket line at the place of work which is also near the residence. It is a perfectly valid point and one must ensure that picketing is allowed in such circumstances.
The hon. Member—whose contributions I greatly respect—also raised a valid but narrow point when, in effect, he said that the onus of proving the matter is on those who propose a change because they have brought forward no evidence of intimidation over the years to justify any change. I want to answer that point. I do so as a matter of judgment.
I think that we have reached a stage in society where we are aware, whatever is said here, that picketing is a very unpleasant thing for those who are picketing and for those who are picketed. I accept that. There are certain times in the evolution of our country when the group must be given greater power at the expense of the individual. This country owes a great deal to the way in which the groups have used that power. There is no doubt that all working people owe

a great deal to the fact that the trade union movement used its power and provided a means of emancipation of the workers from the conditions of the early industrial revolution.
But in our modern society, power has moved to the shop floor, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has said—and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) would say that that is a good thing. We are at a stage, where we have to consider the balance. We have to ask ourselves, "Is it necessary and right?". The hon. Member for Darlington gave examples from the building industry, where it is awkward to picket a man at his place of work and easier to picket him at his place of residence. I accept his argument but I must ask whether it is necessary today to give a union a power which, from my inquiries among hon. Members on this side of the Committee, is comparatively rarely used—the power to picket at home.
7.30 p.m.
I come to a value judgment on it. I do not need any evidence of frightening, intimidation, injury and so on. I think that in the state of society we have reached today, our present state of civilisation, this matter is no longer necessary, and despite the bewailing by the hon. Member for Darlington of the fact that there is a slight change from the 1906 position I say, taking my view of it as a Liberal, that although it was necessary in 1906 to strengthen the group, that is no longer necessary in 1971. When we consider the position of the wife and the children at home, and the fact that trade unionists very rarely use this action, and considering the sometimes exaggerated arguments used on the other side, I come to the value judgment that individual rights must be elevated above the group's. I ask the hon. Member for Darlington so say that it is not necessary to produce evidence, because we are all able, from our own knowledge, to come to a decision whether it is necessary in 1971 to give the trade unions the right to picket the individual's home.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, particularly in view of what I said earlier, in order that I may ask him whether he would not agree that what we are criticising here is a blanket exclusion, whereas it is possible in a number of


cases, which we have instanced, and I gave one from a recent strike, to show that a home can be used as a congregating place for blacklegs. The Clause should take account of that.

Mr. Hooson: I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point. I think it would be very difficult to draft a Clause for that. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made a very good point, and, as I have said before he has made very good contributions to our debates on this matter. In a strike people are hurt. They are bound to be. However legitimate the strike, however legitimate the weapons, they are hurt, and if anyone is legislating for this kind of thing one cannot cover every eventuality.
I agree that there are certain examples which have been given of how this will be a handicap to unions in certain narrow circumstances where they are unable to picket a home, but I understand from my inquiries that normally picketing at home is not the method used by trade unionists if they can avoid it. I think that the generality of the procedure must dominate and I do not think it is possible to legislate in the way that the hon. Gentleman would like.

Mr. Loughlin: I am very glad that we have had this debate, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred to the legal interpretation of the first Amendment which we discussed, because it will be within the recollection of the Committee that I quoted a number of particular cases in which men could be caught under this Clause.
In his winding-up speech the Solicitor-General gave me, at least, to understand that the problem was not so much the cases I quoted but my inability to understand the Bill. In consequence of both his statement and the statement by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery I took legal advice, following upon discussion of that Amendment, and I find from my legal advice that there is a measure of dubiety about the legal interpretation of the Clause, and that it would be, in most of the cases which I quoted, and which other hon. Members on this side quoted, a matter for the courts to decide, and that the

interpretation given by the Solicitor-General—and I put it no higher than this—may have been wrong.
From what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said a moment or two ago it appears that he goes a little further than I, after we had a little chat, and he had some discussion with the Government Front Bench. If the Solicitor-General would give us an assurance—I should like to catch his attention—that if in the light of any fresh looking at the Clause he were to find that there is a measure of dubiety, he would then table an Amendment for Report, I think that would satisfy the Committee.
The more I have listened to this debate and the contributions made from the other side the more I have despaired. I have given every benefit of doubt to those hon. Members on that side to whom I have listened and I agreed with them in many instances. But the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) was conveying the impression, prior to an intervention from this side, that trade unionists on strike had committed a considerable number of instances of intimidation, abuse and violence. I invite him to read in HANSARD tomorrow morning the statement which he made—not only that they had committed that kind of action but that one lady had had acid thrown in her face. He said that in his original remarks. It was only when he was challenged that he back-pedalled. I think that it is an abuse of the procedures of this Committee to make statements of that kind without being prepared to table for the Committee the evidence on which such statements are made.
There has been an argument whether there is something inequitable, or equitable, in the length of time trade unions have enjoyed this right. They have enjoyed it for over 60 years. I agree that there are times when we have to examine the rights which have been bestowed on sectional interests within society, and that there may be circumstances in which we can justifiably say that, in the interests of society as a whole, we have to withdraw a particular right which one section has enjoyed; but before we withdraw a right from any section of the community we have to advance chapter and verse as to abuse, if any, of that right on the part of that section. It is almost an inherent


principle of democracy that we should do so. Not one single jot or iota of evidence has been presented, either by the Tory Party or by my Liberal colleague, to suggest that trade unionists have abused the right about which hon. Members opposite are protesting at the moment.
Of course, one sees on the television instances not only of trade union disputes but of many kinds of dispute. There could be a mammoth demonstration such as the demonstration we had on Sunday, about which there have been estimates varying between 100,000 and 140,000 of the number having taken part, and I do not want to say which estimate is right. If one person had thrown a brick in that demonstration every camera would have pounced. It is now becoming customary for analyses to be made of the conduct of individuals on the basis of the misreporting one sees regularly on the television media.
I will not tolerate, without protest at least, any suggestion that the trade union movement acts as a mob in the greater proportion of its activities. I accept that there may be occasions when trade unionists go off the rails. Outside the Synod of the Church of England—I concede that they are saints and that we are only sinners who keep trying—if anyone can tell me where to find completely peaceful activity by everybody I shall be pleased to know. Let us not condemn the trade union movement, and only the trade union movement, just because a small proportion of its members may on occasion do something wrong. A substantial case must be made out for denying to the trade union movement a right that it has enjoyed for a long time.
When the Bill was introduced I tried to look at it with a degree of charity. Having attended the Second Reading debate and the debates in Committee, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that every Clause we debate is just another link in the chain which is designed to bind the trade union movement. The Solicitor-General has done a mammoth task, but he must cease listening to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who is already beginning the pushing that will take place. If chains are put round the feet, the backwoodsmen will force the Solicitor-General to put chains round the legs. If the Solicitor-General will give an assurance that he

will look at this again on Report we might begin to believe in his innocence rather than his guilt.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Orme: The extraordinary case expounded by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the Solicitor-General was that, whilst there was no concrete evidence that the law on picketing at a person's home should be changed, they nevertheless felt that the law should be changed. Neither the Solicitor-General nor the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has explained to the House why the law defining picketing—which is difficult, and no one has tried to skate over the problem—should be changed from the 1906 Act in respect of
not being a place where he resides".
The answer was given by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). He wanted to see the issue of picketing narrowed further and said that on Report he would try to persuade the Government to define picketing much more clearly and restrictively. The Solicitor-General dismissed as absolute nonsense what I said about this being the thin edge of the wedge, and said that the speeches from the Opposition confirmed his belief that what the Government were doing was right. The Solicitor-General made one of his most impassioned speeches in replying to Amendment No. 873. He was convinced that the Opposition were being irrational, but we are not. The onus is on the Government to prove the point, but they have brought not one iota of proof to the Chamber. It is what lies behind this that worries us.
7.45 p.m.
In an earlier debate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that he recognised that this was an emotional issue to trade unionists,although he could not understand it himself—he happens to be a member of one of the best trade unions in the world which never has to resort to industrial action to achieve its objectives. The Solicitor-General missed the point that, despite what we hear in the Chamber, trade unionists who take strike action do not do so lightly.
I do not run away from the picketing in the Post Office strike. What happened


was completely justifiable and I am prepared to say so publicly, but the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery fail to understand the feelings of trade unionists. Trade unionists who justifiably come out on strike, and their families, have to suffer and make sacrifices, just as the Post Office workers are doing. They feel that they have the right to express forcibly to the people who are going to work why they are on strike. They feel that if the other people had joined the strike they might have been more likely to achieve what they wanted. It is an emotional experience.
Only someone who has been on the picket lines, as I have on several occasions, outside factories and places of work, can understand this. It does not matter whether the strike is official or unofficial, or whether there are pickets or no pickets, if the law is broken people can be prosecuted for violating the common law. When I have been on the picket line some of the people who have been going to work have said to me afterwards that they had been wrong to do so, and had done so only because of difficulties and emotional troubles at home. People who are picketing peacefully have a right to express themselves forcefully. A person going in to work will express himself forcefully too. Pickets often operate in difficult disputes where there is conflict between management and workers and sometimes differences between workpeople.
Hon. Members will recognise immediately the disputes at Pilkingtons and Roberts Arundel, the dispute at B.M.C., in the 1950s, the trawlermen's dispute, the Barbican site dispute. There are not a great number of disputes in which forms of violence took place during picketing. The police were involved in the Roberts Arundel case and damages were paid.

Captain W. Elliot: I appreciate that emotions run high and, as the hon. Gentleman said, violence and intimidation take place.

Mr. Orme: I did not mention intimidation.

Captain Elliot: The hon. Gentleman mentioned violence. Would he agree that exactly the same is likely to arise if a man's house is picketed?

Mr. Orme: I was saying that examples of violence are so few in this country that they prove my case, namely that violence does not take place in the vast majority of disputes. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give me an example of intimidation or violence during picketing of a non-striker's home. He cannot. It is extraordinary that no instances have been given.
This is no small matter. It is obvious that some people are seeking to reduce the power of picketing. Picketing is an extension of the arm of the strike weapon. When workers on strike appear before the public they are not always trying to prevent people going to work. A few years ago during a big dispute at Fords a great deal of picketing and argument took place, though not intimidation. Today, the whole of Ford's plant are out and nobody needs to be on picket. Whole factories have stopped. It is only in certain instances that this sort of thing takes place.
One of the dangers of the Clause is that the police will become more and more involved in disputes, and this point must be carefully weighed. In recent years this tendency has increased. I have witnessed these things personally, and have not merely seen them on television or read about them in the newspapers. It is wrong for the police to be involved in industrial disputes since they should be seen to be independent. During one industrial dispute in Manchester in the early 1960s police turned up with police dogs and it was only after the matter was raised in the House that the police were instructed to withdraw.

Mr. Loughlin: May I ask my hon. Friend to make the clear distinction that, as a general rule, the police are impartial and that it is only in the odd case that difficulty arises?

Mr. Orme: I am not making an attack on the police. In fact, I am seeking to prevent the police being involved. The extension in the provision to somebody's home will bring in more police in industrial disputes. I ask the Solicitor-General to answer this point. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) wishes to interrupt?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I shall be making my own speech.

The Chairman: Order. We cannot have these arguments going on sotto voce.

Mr. Orme: This is not a narrow point and the question of picketing is aimed at the heart of industrial action and dispute. The right to picket has existed since 1906, and if the Bill comes into operation increasing pressure will be put on the Solicitor-General to narrow, define and reduce the picketing powers. I should like an assurance from him that this will not take place.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) should criticise hon. Members on this side of the Committee for not having said enough on the Clause. May I congratulate the lion. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on his recent recordership, which all falls in with the union which has been referred to and to which we both have the honour to belong.
I ask the Government to look at this Clause again. The most important thing about this great Bill of 150 Clauses is that the ordinary person who is affected by it should understand it and not be frightened by it. We do not want a Bill that people do not understand or for them to feel that their rights are affected, when in fact they are not. I do not see how there can be a satisfactory relationship between workers and employers unless they can have complete understanding of what this legislation is all about.
The Committee will know that as a lawyer I am not directly concerned with industrial law, but I have a certain association with industry because my family own one of the few small ports in Cornwall, which I am happy to say was not to be nationalised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). That was the only part of the United Kingdom in the General Strike of 1926 in which the dockers did not go out on strike. The reason was the happy, friendly, family relationships that existed between employer and employed. When I was a boy I remember one of the dockers, who was wearing earrings and who was aged about 70, coming into the office and asking for a job to be given to his boy. The "boy", who was aged about 45, came in and my father, who was a member of this House, gave him a job immediately,

though he had not one to offer. That was the sort of happy relationship that existed at the time. It is the sort of relationship that is required in industry between the employer and the employee, but with the vast concerns of today it makes the task very difficult indeed.

Mr. Dan Jones: Whose responsibility is that?

Mr. Crowder: It is a reflection of the modern world, and it is happening not only in this country but all over Europe. When we seek to put down our ideas in the form of legislation, it should at least be in simple language which the ordinary workman and the man on the factory floor can understand. What do hon. Members think that somebody from a small, working-class cottage on the docks in South Cornwall, at the age of 15, would gather from reading the following:
The provisions of this section shall have effect where one or more persons (in this section referred to as "pickets"), in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, attend at or near

(a) a place where a person works or carries on business, or
(b) any other place where a person happens to be, not being a place where he resides,

and do so only for the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information to him or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work.
(2) In the circumstances specified in the preceding subsection, the attendance of the pickets at that place for that purpose—
(a) shall not of itself constitute an offence under section 7 of the Conspiracy, and protection of Property Act 1875 …"?
How many people living in cottages in South Cornwall will have that Act under the bed? How can we pass legislation of this sort without looking at it in a common sense way?

Mr. Russell Kerr: It is like the rest of the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Crowther: I could have drafted the Bill in 60 Clauses. The point of this loquacious Clause is to be found in the three words "where he resides" in subsection 1(b). All that the Government are trying to say in verbose, complicated lawyer's language is that they do not want pickets outside people's homes.
The Government should look at the Clause and redraft it on sensible lines


because picketing has been going on in this country for as long as 65 years. It was introduced by the Liberal Party to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery belongs. All that the ordinary person who will be subjected to this Clause wants to know is what it means, and all it means is that one cannot be beastly and behave disgracefully outside a person's home. In the 20 years that I have been at the criminal bar, I cannot think of an instance of a person having been attacked or assaulted by a picket. Will the Government have the kindness to look at this Clause again and simplify it?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) has urged simplification of the Clause, but he cannot have recollected the way in which the law stands. It stands on a combination of the 1875 Act and the 1906 Act. I dare say that copies of the 1906 Act are as scarce under the bed of his friends in their cottages as are copies of the 1875 Act. My hon. and learned Friend has enough experience of the law to know that one must formulate Clauses with some precision and that if we were merely to attempt the random style of draftsmanship which he suggested it would not add to the intelligibility of the document. Even the last Government's Bill dealing with a much smaller area, like many other pieces of recent legislation, covered many pages and contained many Clauses.
I share my hon. and learned Friend's aspiration that the law should be drafted in the crisp simplicity of the law of Justinian or the Magna Carta, but those days are no longer with us. I assure him that a great deal of thought has been given to the formulation of this Clause to achieve precisely the object which he endorses. The object of the Clause is to remove the place where someone resides from the presumption in favour of the legitimacy of picketing.

Mr. Dan Jones: May I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman—

The Solicitor-General: I fear not. We have spent many hours debating the Clause in the context of the two Amendments.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) acknowledged,

the object of the Clause is to make clear that the presumption in favour of the legitimacy of watching and besetting a person's home should be withdrawn. Understanding of the legal position, whether on this or on any other matter, depends on that which is known and made plain throughout the country. I cannot believe that people have benevolent legislation like the Rent Act, 1965, posted around their dwelling houses.
The purpose and effect of this legislation is clear. The purpose and effect dates back to 1875 when the law first started—perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will forgive me for mentioning it—in a Statute placed on the Statute Book by Disraeli, who at that time sat on this side of the Committee, and the principle continued in the 1906 Act. All that we are doing is to make a single change in respect of picketing of the home. Everyone is agreed about the effect and intention of the Clause.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) wondered whether there was room for doubt about the legitimacy as it has prevailed heretofore of picketing a place of work which was one and the same place as the home. I have looked at the matter again very closely and sought advice, and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has done the same. The intention is plain: to vary the law only in respect of the pure home. I judge that the intention is plainly achieved by the Clause. I cannot see any way in which the object of the exercise can be made plainer. If there is anxiety about the matter we will look at it again, but it is difficult to see any way of changing it.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the question which I raised last night about which I feel very strongly? Will he undertake to look at the drafting of the Clause to deal with the situation in which a home is used as a place for gathering blacklegs together and taking them from one place to another?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot agree to look at that matter. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly referred to the motorised strike situation in which people are chasing each other around the countryside of Yorkshire and arguing and


counter-arguing about the legitimacy of a strike. All forms of communication are perfectly legitimate as long as they do not overstep the bounds of the 1875 Act and do not amount to attempts to compel someone to act against his entitlement or to watching or besetting. There is nothing wrong in attending at a house, whether it is occupied by one or more strikers, would-be strikers or strike breakers. All that we are saying is that there is no longer an automatic presumption in favour of the right of picketing somebody's home. There is no case for altering the law in the way which would apply to the examples which the hon. Member has given.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) raised a similar point. Nothing in the Bill affects the right of people to visit each other's homes and to talk to each other and deliver notes. The hon. Member for Darlington asked how one could communicate with people who were not at home when one wanted to communicate with them. The 1875 Act provided that certain forms of attempted compulsion could amount to criminal offences. It wrote in a special licence and privilege for picketing in the course of industrial disputes. It was continued, with modifications, in 1906 and is now continued. But that special privilege and immunity is no longer judged to be necessary in respect of the home.
I return to the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for accepting that situation. No one is making a general charge of violence against trade unions, trade unionists or the trade union movement. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) condemn, as we all condemn, violence in an industrial situation. But almost every hon. Member who has contributed to this and the previous debate has acknowledged that in the picketing situation, an extension of the strike weapon, violence may sometimes occur. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) explained how that can happen. He referred to the very nature of the feelings on both sides, the emotional experience of both sides, the real conflict of view involved between the striker and the non-striker, and so on. It is because of this conflict of emotion, desire and will that

violence can occur from time to time in the picketing situation. We all know it.
From that, my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) argues that it would be right to change the law to limit the rights and privileges of pickets more generally. I do not accept that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not, and the Government do not accept it. We believe that the ordinary criminal law, to various aspects of which a number of hon. Members have referred, is sufficient in almost all areas. It is available and can be deployed to that end. We do not accept any suggestion for changing the general law on picketing.
The hon. Member for Walton introduced a curious thought into the discussion when he suggested that violence tends to occur in picketing only if the police attempt to protect the rights of scabs to go to work. That is a very odd proposition to advance in this Committee.

Mr. Dan Jones: It is a very practical one.

The Solicitor-General: I want to follow it through. The hon. Member for Salford, West said that it was wrong for the police to become involved in the resolution of industrial disputes.

Mr. Orme: Hear, hear.

The Solicitor-General: I accept that, and I am sure that every hon. Member will. But if it is the function of the police in this situation, as in so many others, to uphold the criminal law on which hon. Gentlemen say that it is sufficient to rely, it is their unenviable duty to check and identify, and proceed in cases which they judge right, where the criminal law has been infringed.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is what provokes trouble.

Mr. Concannon: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has read the history of the Nottinghamshire miners, but perhaps I might direct his attention to the case at Harworth, where the police were involved in taking what was termed the "Harworth chain gang" through the village to the pit. An incident resulted in 11 people in Har-


worth, including a female, being sent to prison.

The Solicitor-General: What was the date of that incident?

Mr. Concannon: It was some time ago. It was in the 1930s.

The Solicitor-General: I think that it is common ground on both sides of the Committee that, so far as the occasions when picketing spills over into violence are concerned, one has the ordinary provisions of the criminal law to prevent the violence taking place and spreading. If that is common ground, it can only be done by the police. It is a difficult duty to discharge, but I suggest that it would be disastrous in such a situation if the police were seen to be discriminating in favour of one side or the other, be it in favour of the unanimously striking employees against the employer or vice versa, or be it against the strikers or against those whom hon. Gentlemen opposite have termed "scabs" or "blacklegs".
I do not accept the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton that violence arises only when the police seek to protect scabs. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee do not accept the ligitimacy of this distinction. On their behalf, I put forward the proposition that people are entitled to make their way to their place of work without the threat of violence and with proper protection. But I do not accept that that involves any change in the general law on picketing.
I accept the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that when one judges the balance for changing the law, there is a case for considering the extent to which the home no longer becomes a place to which it is presumed by law that the emotions, conflicts and passions of industrial dispute should wash. There is some point to which a man can retreat and feel that he is immune from pressures of this kind. That is the limit of what we want to achieve. It is on that point that the Committee has now spent some six or seven hours arguing for and against seeking to that very limited extent to protect the home of a person, on whatever side of an industrial dispute he may

be, from the presumption that it is a legitimate site for picketing.
I now commend the Clause to the Committee.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have spoken on only one occasion before in a debate on this Bill. That was on Second Reading, when I detained the House for only four minutes. I shall be equally brief today.
I think that I am the only hon. Member in the Palace of Westminster to have had experience of both picketing and taking part in a strike not very far from this Palace—

Mr. Dan Jones: My hon. Friend is right in his geography, but not otherwise.

Mr. Lewis: I repeat that I think that I am the only hon. Member to take part in a strike while an hon. Member within a stone's throw of the Palace of Westminster.
I wanted to intervene during the speech of the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman refused to give way. I also wanted to intervene during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). My hon. Friend refused to give way at first—

Mr. Orme: rose—

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend was advised by our Front Bench, and he later gave way. If the Solicitor-General had given way to me, I should have put two questions to him.
The incident which I am about to recount to the Committee is not hypothesis. It actually happened to me. The first case concerns a worker who, while employed at a hotel, may live in the hotel and, as such, reside there. In other words, for the time being it becomes his home. The second case is where a hotel worker resides in an annexe which is not actually in the hotel but is near to and adjacent to the hotel.
On the occasion of which I speak, I was picketing at the Savoy Hotel, on the Embankment. I was picketing the place of employment of the hotel workers involved. Nearby and adjacent to the hotel was the place where they resided and which was their home. It was impossible to picket either their home or


their place of work without picketing both at the same time. Therefore, what I was doing was quite legal, although eventually I was arrested for other reasons, as hon. Members will recall—[Interruption.] I am not apologising. I was quite proud of the effort. However, it is not material to the point that I am making.
If this provision had existed then, I would have been arrested and charged with picketing the residence of those workers. How can trade union officials or strikers picket in places like this other than by picketing the place of residence?
Many charges have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Orme) said that no instance had been given by hon. Members opposite in which intimidation had taken place and violence had been used near someone's home. I would ask not hon. Members opposite

but the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to produce this evidence. His Department was formerly the Ministry of Labour and must have records of strikes and disputes for quite a period.

Will he officially—if not now, by Report stage—give the number of cases which have been officially reported to his Department of complaints and intimidation at the homes of striking workers? So far as I know, no figures have been published. If there are any, I should like to see them. They must be so few that it is not worth bringing in this restrictive Clause to prevent legitimate picketing.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:

The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 249.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 122 and 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT WITH A VIEW TO DISCONTINUING OR DEFERRING INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Haffer: We regard Clause 124 as being of considerable importance. I will not say that it is the heart of the Bill because that has been said many times before about other Clauses. I oppose the Motion that this Clause should stand

part of the Bill, and in doing so it is necessary to consider it in association with Clauses 125 and 126, although I shall deal primarily with Clause 124.
This Clause raises the whole question of the so-called cooling-off period—a period which can be operated under the proposals in the Bill for up to 60 days. The Clause goes much further than strikes and deals with other forms of industrial action. The so-called cooling-off period could be used to deal with a strike, a work-to-rule, an overtime ban, a go-slow or any other form of industrial action known of at present.
We have frequently pointed out that the Bill is modelled very much on the United States Taft-Hartley Act. Indeed, many parts of the Bill are a direct import from the U.S. However, this part of the


Bill goes further than that because it gives direct powers to the secretary of State which the American President does not have.
Section 206 of the Taft-Hartley Act enables the U.S. President in certain circumstances to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding a strike. That board must report to him within an agreed period. Its report must be made public, and under Section 207 of the Act the board may summon witnesses, examine documents and investigate in the most detailed way the circtunstances of the dispute before there is any decision on the part of the President about making an order for a cooling-off period. Only after receiving that report may he direct the Attorney-General to petition for an injunction and impose a 60-day cooling-off period.
Under this Bill the Secretary of State can decide, when it appears to him to be necessary, to make an application to the industrial court for an order. In other words, we are giving greater powers to the Secretary of State than the people of America are prepared to give to their President for the imposition of a cooling-off period. Nor is there any suggestion in this Measure that there should be a board of inquiry first.
I have no doubt that in discussing this matter our attention will once again be drawn to the document "In Place of Strife". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would be surprised if hon. Gentlemen opposite did not do that, having no real case of their own. In that document my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put forward the concept of the status quo; that an employer should keep to the prevailing conditions of employment. Nothing like that is suggested in this Measure.
Under our policy, if a strike arose because of a change made by an employer he could be obliged to return to the status quo. Many industrial disputes could be solved if the first step was a return to the status quo. Proper discussions could then take place. It is when an employer arbitrarily takes a decision to move away from the existing conditions and tries to impose new conditions that disputes frequently break out.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has just said that if the parties would

go back to the status quo, in many cases a solution could be found to the strike. What about the postmen at present? If they had returned to the situation where arbitration was agreed and if they had accepted it, there would have been a solution. The hon. Gentleman puts forward a proposition which in that instance does not, has not and is not working because the union will not conform.

Mr. Heffer: I have often heard hon. Members say that they regret having given way. I have never yet said it myself, but on this occasion I regret that I gave way because the hon. Gentleman's point added absolutely nothing and made no contribution to the debate. We are not discussing the exact conditions of the postmen's dispute. I am pointing out that many disputes would be easier to settle if the status quo situation remained.
The words of Section 208 of the Taft-Hartley Act are very similar to those in the Bill. Section 208(a) states:
Upon receiving a report from a board of inquiry the President may direct the Attorney General to petition any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties to enjoin such strike or lock-out or the continuing thereof, and if the court finds that such threatened or actual strike or lock-out (i) affects an entire industry or a substantial part thereof engaged in trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or with foreign nations, or engaged in the production of goods for commerce; and (ii) if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national health or safety, it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike or lock-out, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders as may be appropriate.
The language used in our laws has been mentioned in the debate. It seems that the language used in the United States laws is not much better from the point of view of the understanding of the ordinary worker. Lawyers in every country suffer from the same problem in drafting documents. If those words are contrasted with the words in Clause 124(2)(a) and (b), whilst they are not exactly the same, there is an immense similarity. It is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have to a large extent lifted them. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is nodding in agreement. That is interesting. I understand that he is a leading member of the Industrial Committee, which obviously had something to do with the drafting of the Bill. The words are lifted right out.


These proposals go beyond that part of the Act. I quote a very interesting statement from Mr. George Meeney, the National President of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.:
Under Taft-Hartley, as under the proposed British legislation, the government's assertion that a strike creates or threatens a national emergency is supposedly subject to judicial review, but no court has ever been willing to override the judgment of the government on that. Thus in practice under Taft-Hartley a 'national emergency' is any labor dispute that the government decides to so label. While the U.S. government has been fairly restrained in invoking the National Emergency provisions … the definition of national emergency contemplated for the proposed British legislation is much, much broader than that in Taft-Hartley. Thus the British legislation would apply to disputes which 'would deprive the community of the essentials of life or seriously endanger the national health, security or economy'. That would encompass any very large strike, such as the current General Motors strike, whereas Taft-Hartley may not be invoked simply because of the size of the strike.
8.45 p.m.
That is important. It must be said again and again that the Bill goes much further than the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act: yet the American unions have consistently fought the Taft-Hartley Act and have suffered as a result of its existence.
Precisely because it is a direct import from the United States, the effects that the Taft-Hartley Act has had in America must be examined. I quote the headlines of an article by Stephen Fay in the Sunday Times of 26th January, 1969:
Seven strike threats plus seven cooling-offs equal seven strikes.
And 13 ballots equal 13 strikes.
Stephen Fay said something else which is well worth quoting. He had discussed the situation with one of the leaders of the dockers' union on the East Coast of the United States. This is what Gleason—the dockers' leader—said:
'Taft-Hartley is a nuisance'. It clearly does not deter the dockers. It is not that Gleason is bent on the destruction of American capitalism. This is one of the most militant unions in the United States', Gleason says. 'and it is one of the most patriotic in the country, too. I have been to Vietnam four times to help them get the stuff off the boats'. But Taft-Hartley does seem to have fouled up negotiating practice in the docks. 'The trouble is that the employers never make their final offer before the contract ends because they know the Government will send us back to work for 80 days', says Gleason.

So there we have it—13 ballots equals 13 strikes; seven strike threats, plus seven cooling-off periods, equal seven strikes.
I call in aid the Royal Commission, because I am sure we shall hear much of this. Paragraphs 423–25 refer. In paragraph 425 the Commission, after having examined the proposals for cooling off, said this:
On the whole therefore we do not think that the introduction of a procedure such as is proposed by the Society of Conservative Lawyers"—
that was the proposal for the 60-day cooling-off period—
would be beneficial. We think it preferable that the Government's present freedom of action should be preserved, and we do not think that it has been shown that its power needs to be increased.
All the evidence—whether it is the evidence of the experience in the United States or the evidence of the Royal Commission, which seriously studied the question—proves conclusively that the proposals in the Bill are unnecessary and will not aid industrial relations.
These proposals may increase bitterness and result in strikes of longer duration than is necessary. During the 60-day cooling-off period both sides may build up their resources for the time when the cooling-off period ends. That has been the experience in the United States, and it could well happen here. The proposal gives far too much power to the Secretary of State. It is directed wholly against unions, with no attempt to influence employers.
The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said that he wanted the control of picketing to go much further than merely preventing the picketing of peoples' homes. In the United States of America similar voices are being raised. One is the voice of Senator Fannin, a Republican from Arizona, who said in January of this year that
When an injunction has been applied to a union on supposed grounds of a threatened national emergency strike, this Bill will make the injunction permanent until after an agreement has been reached, rather than the 80-day period now in law.
So we start with a 60-day cooling-off period. That does not prevent strikes. Hon. Members opposite would then propose a permanent injunction. Basically,


that would mean the end of the right to strike.
The next step would be open and direct Fascism. The argument has been advanced that things would be very much easier with this sort of legislation. Things are easy in Spain; the workers cannot take action. It is easy to argue that case; but it means the end of democratic rights for trade unions.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has said that workers in Spain are not allowed to strike; but in both Spain and Poland they have done so, in defiance of the law, thereby bringing it into complete disrepute.

Mr. Heller: Yes. The workers always will do that, in defiance of the law.

Mr. David Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Heller: I will not give way. The hon. Member for Basingstoke will have an opportunity of debating this matter. I have spent long enough explaining my opposition to the Clause.
Because this part of the Bill is a fundamental attack on the trade union movement, because we believe that it is totally unnecessary, and will not solve disputes, and because the important thing is to get the conciliation machinery into operation in these situations rather than introduce Measures of this kind, we ask the Committee to reject the Clause and the whole of this part of the Bill.

Mr. Ian Percival: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) that this is a very important Clause. It introduces something new into our law. It is important that it should be justifiable, clear and workable. I agree that the concept is taken from the cooling-off period specified in the Taft-Hartley legislation. I stress the word "concept", because there is a lot of difference in the detail. Shortly I shall respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that the powers given to the Secretary of State under the Bill are greater than the political powers given in America. I think that he has misunderstood it. At all events, there is another view.
I shall not spend time comparing what is proposed here with "In Place of Strife", and neither shall I spend time referring to what the Royal Commission said about it, although I had the honour to form the society of Conservative lawyers which was referred to in the quotation which the hon. Gentleman made from the Donovan Report. But I am glad to have a chance to speak on the Clause because, although I acknowledge that hon. Members opposite have much more knowledge of certain aspects of the matter, my interest in it has been no less great and no less sincere over many years.
Last year, having talked a lot with other lawyers about Taft-Hartley over the years, I thought that it would not be a bad thing to go and see it in operation on the ground. I concede that I am only a "three-week" expert, a rather limited kind of expert, but I did meet people like Tom Harris of the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. who has worked with the Taft-Hartley Act for a very long time, and who has such a reputation in the United States, as well as meeting people like the Regional Director of the Labour Relations Board in Brooklyn who has had such great experience of implementing Taft-Hartley, and many others.
In that way, one gains a rather better slant on the American law—I put it no higher than that—than one does merely from reading, hearing about it and discussing it.

Mr. Heffer: I spent two full months, long before I came to the House, studying the whole trade union movement and American trade union law in the United States.

Mr. Percival: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I meant to imply anything adverse to him, for I meant no such thing. I was merely saying that I had a little experience and that, although I could not claim a lot of knowledge, I felt that I was entitled at least to claim some. [Interruption.] I said that hon. Members opposite have much more knowledge of other aspects of the subject than I have. I speak merely as a lawyer who has been closely interested in the legal side of the matter, who does not believe that the law can solve industrial relations problems but who hopes that it might provide means to assist those


who are actively engaged in resolving differences, and one who has a little, albeit only a little, first-hand experience of the Taft-Hartley legislation.
The hon. Gentleman overstates the case when he says that the American trade unions have suffered from the Taft-Hartley Act. I dare say that they have in some ways, but I am sure that he will be the first to agree that there are differing views on the other side of the Atlantic about who benefits under Taft-Hartley. There are some who think that it is meant entirely for the benefit of unions, and there are some unions who think that it is certainly not. I do not believe that one can postulate either of those views. In some respects, it is very helpful to unions, and in other ways it is not.
What we should learn from the United States is that this particular procedure has, on the whole, worked. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it has been used only about 27 times in 25 years—or 25 times in 27 years; I am not sure which. I say here and now that I expect and hope to hear from Ministers that it is the Government's intention that this procedure should be used very rarely, and only in the quite exceptional case.
The one lesson to be learned from the United States is that, if it were to be used frequently, it might soon lose its effectiveness. It should be available only in most extreme circumstances when the national interest is at stake. I for one am very glad that the conditions upon which it may be prayed in aid are drawn so very tightly in the Bill.
I was told that in the United States they regarded that as very important. One example was an airline strike. The Secretary of Labour at the time said that his immediate reaction was that it was a dispute on such a scale that it must be affecting the national interest and that therefore the cooling-off period should be employed. But, realising how important it was that it should be used only very rarely, he reconsidered the matter and said that while it was an enormous inconvenience to have all the airlines out on strike it was not necessarily prejudicial o the national interest in the short run. So the United States Government gave effect to the principle that the power should be used only in the most extreme cases.
[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
9.0 p.m.
Where the hon. Gentleman may be wrong is in his assumption that great powers are given to the Secretary of State. The only reason I find the provisions acceptable is that I believe that the powers of the Secretary of State have been severely curbed. If I thought that the provisions gave him great powers, I should oppose them.
We must look at Clauses 124 and 125 together. I hope that I shall be in order in referring briefly to Clause 125, because the point I want to make is so closely bound up with what is in it. It is true that the Secretary of State does not have to appoint a board of inquiry, as the United States President does. He has only to satisfy himself that the conditions postulated in Clause 124 are satisfied, and does not have to go outside his own Department at that stage. But he has first to satisfy himself that all the conditions of the Clause are met. All that the Clause says is that if he has satisfied himself to that extent he may apply to the court, but nothing happens then unless he satisfies the court that he was right in thinking that those conditions were met.
Here I speak with 20 years' experience of the courts, and from the heart. It is wrong to think that we shall see here anything like what happened in the United States, if the quotation which the hon. Gentleman read is true. If my memory is correct, it said that the courts had never dared disagree with the President's conclusion that the national interest was at stake. I do not wish to comment on that, though from the little I know of the American courts I doubt whether that proposition is justified. But, be that as it may, I am certain as I can be of anything that it does not apply to this country. I am certain that the Industrial Relations Court will carry on the traditions of the other courts that it stands there to protect everyone else against the State, and that when the State applies for an order it has if anything an even more difficult job to satisfy the court of the conditions which must obtain before the court will make an order.


The procedure in the Clauses is very desirable. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, it is designed to protect the persons against whom the order may eventually be made, and it provides the best protection that can be provided for them. Apart from the Secretary of State's deliberations, which will be in private, everything must happen in public. The application must be in public, the Secretary of State must satisfy the court on facts stated in public, facts which will be presented by witnesses who will be cross-examined, no doubt very rigorously if the ground is shaky, and the contrary case can be put by anyone who is interested to put it in public. Then, finally, the decision and the reasons for it will be given in public.

Mr. Russell Kerr: With the lawyers earning fat fees.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) does himself and the Committee less than justice by silly remarks like that. No one ever employs a lawyer unless he wants his services. In the N.I.R.C., legal aid will be available. We were told that yesterday but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here then. We have not seen much of him in the last few days.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Percival: No, I am not giving way.
The case may be presented to the court by any person any party desires to present it—perhaps it will be a trade union official or an individual. If the party wishes to employ a lawyer, he may present the case. The whole of the facts are to be examined in public, and the onus will be on the Secretary of State to satisfy the court that all of the conditions postulated by the Statute have been satisfied. It is only in these circumstances that an order can be made. I believe that the conditions have been drawn very tightly. If any hon. Member opposite were able to demonstrate that they are not drawn tightly but are drawn loosely, I should be the first to express the wish that such a defect should be remedied, because 1 believe that, if a procedure like this is to be useful, notwithstanding the remarks of my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Percival: What lawyers hope for is that these processes will be useful for the purpose for which they are intended. I believe that the process we are introducing into our law can be useful, providing two conditions are satisfied—first, that the conditions under which the powers may be exercised are tightly drawn, and, secondly, that the procedure is used but rarely.
I commend the Clause to the Committee because I believe that the first requirement, which is the only one which can be dealt with in the Bill, is satisfied by the Clause as drafted, and I hope and expect that the other prerequisite for the success of this procedure—that it be used rarely—is the Government's intention.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I take up two points made by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). He said that in the United States the authorities were reluctant to use injunctions for the 90-day cooling-off period. He put forward this proposition in support of an argument that we should adopt a similar system.
The reluctance in the United States is because the system has failed there. After the longshoremen's strike, a directive was issued to the Civil Service to this effect, "Do not get an injunction to restrain unions from striking for 90 days" because in the longshoremen's case a comparatively small dispute during the waiting period was blown up into a major national strike. As a consequence of its own experience, the United States is holding back from imposing upon the union a statutory period of 90 days before it takes strike action. So it has nothing at all to do with the reluctance of the Administration to invoke that clause. It is a fact of history which has taught it that the law does not work. It is getting its fingers burned, and that is the reason why it is holding back.
So do not let us take as an example what is happening in America, because if we have similar legislation we shall find out from our own experience gained in the hard way, that the law will not work and that a cooling-off period would, in fact, be a hotting-up period and that many strikes would be more difficult to settle rather than easier to settle.


The next point which the hon. and learned Gentleman made was that if the Secretary of State made application to the court, the court would have to be satisfied that it was a legitimate application. Surely, the courts are the creature of the Government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] They are being created—

Mr. Percival: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: Just a moment. I will give way presently. They will be created by this Bill. The courts will be created in accordance with the Clauses of the Bill. They are creatures of this Government, and the creatures of the Secretary of State, and so it is inconceivable that if he takes a case to the court and the case is in accordance with the Bill which we are about to pass, the court will not grant the Secretary of State's request.

Mr. Percival: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but I say to him, with all humility, that if he really believes that the courts of this country are the creatures of anybody, he has got it wrong. Somebody has got to set them up, but I hope that he will realise that and in the rest of his speech—if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will keep quiet for a moment as others have kept quiet and listened to him—really will accept from those of us who deal with the courts every day that the courts of this country are wholly independent and not creatures of anybody, and will not be in acting under this Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that I did not refer to the courts of this country. I referred to the courts which are being created by the Bill, and they have their powers set out in the various Clauses of the Bill. As a consequence. the courts are the creatures of the Secretary of State.
To make an elaborate argument that the court will have to be satisfied that the Secretary of State is correct, and so on, is beside the point, because if the Secretary of State is working in accordance with the Bill which we are about to pass he will obviously bring himself within the jurisdiction of the court. The courts are mere creatures of the Secretary of State. So this is no safeguard. The courts are puppets of this Administration, and puppets of the Tory Government.

Mr. Gower: We, of course, understand what the hon. Member means when he says that they are created by this legislation, but they will be a branch, a part, of our judicature and will be manned by, among others, persons who are independent of the Executive Government and who are part of the judiciary and are High Court judges. It has been the glory of the democratic tradition of this country for many generations that our judges, constantly over history, have faced and opposed actions of the Executive Government at various times.

Mr. Fletcher: I know that judges are held in very high regard by the legal profession, but they are not necessarily so regarded by the public of this country. Judges have been matters for derision throughout the ages. From Chaucer through Shakespeare to Gilbert and Sullivan we have made fun of our judges. The only respect now shown to them is by the legal profession. The fact that we appoint judges to the Industrial Relations Court, which is the equivalent of the High Court, does not mean that the trade unions will necessarily hold them in higher reverence. Their duties are specifically set out in the Bill, and if the Secretary of State acts in accordance with the Bill he will he using his creatures to see that his will is carried forward.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 124(3) refers to a strike or to irregular industrial action short of a strike. On previous occasions we have asked the Government what is "action short of a strike". It is vital in this context, because the cooling-off period could be used in aid of action short of a strike. Is working to rule notion short of a strike? Is this the sort of action where the Government could impose a cooling-off period?
When a trade unionist works to rule, he works to the employer's rule—the rules that are given to him by the employer when he obtains employment. For example, a driver in a haulage firm might be told to examine tyre pressures and the water level in the radiator and see that the battery is topped up. In the interests of production he gives a cursory glance to these things and carries on with the job. If he obeyed the rules of his employer and worked to rule he could spend a good deal of time each day doing


these things, with a consequent loss of production. Is this action short of a strike? Is it action that should be penalised? Would the court say that there should be a 60-day cooling-off period for this action because it is used in furtherance of an industrial dispute?
The 60-day cooling-off period is quite irrelevant to solving industrial disputes, and may even prolong them. Small sections of workers who have a genuine grievance will be able to utilise the 60 days to mobilise support amongst their colleagues in other branches, and at the end of the cooling-off period we may be faced with bigger industrial problems than if initially the unions and employers had sat round a table and tried to solve their problems.
Clauses 124, 125 and 126 are particularly important. They incorporate systems which exist in the United States and which have failed to such an extent that the Americans are having second thoughts about them. If the Government studied the American situation, they might come to the same conclusions as are being reached over there and think twice before trying to implement the Clauses.

Mr. Tom King: I certainly follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) when he says that this Measure is no magic solution to the problems and that there will be many occasions when it could aggravate the situation. There will be little disagreement on this point between those of us with common industrial experience.
I do not follow him on his comments on the judiciary, which I thought were most regrettable and, out of kindness, best ignored. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may feel that it would have been better not said.
There is a danger that this Clause may achieve a significance out of proportion to its effectiveness in relation to the number of times it is likely to be used. We are asked why we are bringing forward this provision since it is never likely to be used, but there is conflicting evidence on this matter.
Hon. Members have mentioned the American experience and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)

mentioned the article instancing seven ballots, seven pauses and seven strikes. Furthermore, when one looks at paragraph 421 of Donovan one sees that the evidence is conflicting. In 24 cases in which injunctions were granted, a standstill period was successfully imposed. We do not know what the situation would be when tightly-drawn Clauses are imposed in regard to action which is likely to be
gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security or to create a serious risk of public disorder. —
We cannot ignore the evidence that in 16 instances mentioned by Donovan stoppages were virtually avoided by the use of the Taft-Hartley procedure.
The hon. Member for Walton pointed to the extension of the Taft-Hartley procedure to matters which are likely
to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons, or expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury.
That is the standard in the Taft-Hartley procedure, but surely in the national interest that could be omitted in view of the interdependence of one set of workers with another set of workers.
Therefore, I support this provision on the strict condition that it is used sparingly. Attention has been drawn to the American experience and on some occasions we are told that we cannot avoid the consequences of the present situation in the United States. I do not accept that view. In this country we have our own ways of handling matters and we have our own ways of interpreting the law as applied to differing conditions and to different people.

Mr. Heffer: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's last point that up to now we have had our own ways of settling problems. Why, therefore, to solve our problems do we now have to borrow from the United States something that is suspect?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman intervenes as though the rest of the world remains static. We are living in a dynamic society. In 1906 we did not, for example, have 25 per cent. American investment in this country. [Laughter.] I do not introduce this matter in any way to suggest that, because we have American investment, we should adopt American labour laws. Hon. Members should not read into my words more than


I meant. Perhaps it was an unfortunate example to give. What I meant by giving that example was simply that it is a changing situation. We did not have the same level of American capital investment in 1906 or in 1875.

Mr. David Mitchell: I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in condemning the laughter with which this very serious matter about United States investment in this country was greeted by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he was trying to throw a lifeline which was not really needed. In view of what has been said in the correspondence columns of The Times in the last two days, and in spite of the attempt of the hon. Member for Walton to dismiss the matter as though it was past history, we recognise that we live in an international world of industry. The situation is not static, and it is no good arguing that it is.
The proposed procedure will be effective only if it is not regarded as the general rule and only if it is used extremely sparingly and strictly in accordance with Clause 124(1)(c). This is the nub of the Clause, and it provides
that having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute,
use of the Bill
would be conducive to a settlement … by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred".
It does not mean that that will automatically follow or that we shall get into the sort of situation which has arisen in the United States where the 60-day period is automatically discounted and it becomes part of the common negotiating procedure. This is a fall-back procedure to be employed only as categorised in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2).

Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. Gentleman has said on several occasions that the Bill should be used only extremely sparingly. Can he point to anything in the Clause that indicates that it must be used only sparingly and which will stop the Secretary of State, who is given complete discretion, from applying to the court as and when he sees fit?

Mr. King: I have already answered that point in my opening remarks. This procedure will be used in only a limited number of cases.
The hon. Member for Darlington made the point, which I accept, that in many instances the situation could positively be aggravated by employing this procedure. There are many other cases in which it will be effective. Whether the procedure is used sparingly will be determined by whether the Secretary of State correctly interprets subsection (1)(c). There will be very few cases in which it could be fairly said that it was conducive to a settlement.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I have been trying to contemplate situations in which the Clause would be appropriate. The Prime Minister used to say that the number of working days lost was tragic and that strikes were prevalent and, therefore, legislation would be introduced to deal with the situation.
We are now discussing a situation in which the Secretary of State is not confronted with a strike. According to the words in the Clause, he may be confronted with something short of a strike, yet that which is short of a strike must also be
 … gravely injurious to the national economy".
I have had a lot of experience in this House, in Ministerial positions and in industry. I cannot conceive of a situation which is even remotely comparable with that kind of wording.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Clause refers to conditions
… likely to be gravely injurious to the national economy".
If a strike has not taken place but is definitely threatened and is likely to be gravely injurious, I think that the Secretary of State of the day has every right to act within the provisions of the Clause.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is talking about strikes which are definitely threatened. I do not read anything like that in the Clause.
In a number of places in the Clause we see references to matters which have not reached the stage of strike action. In subsection (3)(a) we see a reference to
… irregular industrial action short of a strike".


How does any Minister begin to construe irregular industrial action short of a strike as being a situation which is gravely injurious to the national economy?

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Lang-stone): Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman with a valid example. If those in charge of the national defence radar computers were to work to rule on those computers, in certain circumstances they could so prejudice our defence that large numbers of people would find their lives at risk. But that is not a strike.

Mr. Lee: Here we come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher). Apparently, if there is a threat to work to rule it is now to be decided that the Secretary of State is justified in using this Clause. However, if men are working to rule, they are working to conditions and regulations laid down by their employer.

Mr. Tom King: I should have picked up the hon. Member for Darlington on this point. I do not think that anyone seriously accepts that working to rule means working to rules approved by an employer.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Of course it does.

Mr. King: In practice, it means working to rules established by employees within the vacuum of unspecified terms of employment of their employers.

Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put that proposition down as an Amendment, I will consider it. At the moment, hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be violently disagreeing with each other, and I do not wish to see supporters of the Bill getting themselves into that sort of state after I have been on my feet for only about 30 seconds.

Mr. Gower: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the interpretation Clause, Clause 148, he will see the word "action" defined as
any refusal or failure to act

Mr. Lee: I do not want to continue with this point for too long. I have tried to glean some information from the combined wisdom of hon. Gentlemen opposite by giving way to them, but I still want to know how the Secretary of State proposes to work the Clause.
I have quoted the words of the Clause without importing any language of my own. If the Secretary of State were suddenly confronted by one of his civil servants who said, "It really should appear necessary to you that, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, certain things are likely to happen," what action would he take? Would he first ask himself whether the issue was gravely injurious to the national economy? He would have to satisfy himself that it was before he could act on this Clause. If he does not act, having satisfied himself that it is, or is likely to be, gravely injurious to the national economy, then he is falling down on his duty. But the criterion for that is not necessarily a strike. It is that in some way or another some action short of a strike is likely.
In the first instance, how does the Secretary of State find this out? I do not want to go over some of the other Clauses, but my hon. Friend has shown with great clarity that this must be a "snoopers' charter" if it is to work at all. How does the solemn occupant of No. 8 St. James's Square find out that some action short of a strike is to take place in Trafford Park, Manchester, or some other industrial area, and then make up his mind whether it is likely to become gravely injurious to the national economy? I suggest that the Clause alone, no matter how much we may disagree on other issues, shows that this legislation is utterly unworkable.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) disagreed about working to rule. Let me give other illustrations. I can think of huge factories in which I had responsibilities, in which—during the highest crisis imaginable, a war period—one had to keep the balance of production pretty uniform. In other words, parts produced in one part of the factory had to synchronise with those produced in other parts.
Suppose that in one part of the factory a large number of men with a grievance decided to come off the piecework system and go on day work. There is nothing whatever in their terms of employment to stop them doing that, but anyone with any knowledge of the work floor in a great factory knows that if that went on for a few days the whole balance of production would be distorted in the factory.


Is this conceived as something gravely injurious to the national economy? These men, let us remember, are working entirely within their rights. In this case, it would be not even a question of working to rule but one of working to the conditions on which they were employed.
With some experience as a Minister, I would not know how to work this Clause, and I would challenge any right hon. Gentleman within sound of my voice who has been in a Ministerial chair to tell me how he would work it out.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The right hon. Gentleman should be fairly fair on this. Besides dealing with this Clause, perhaps I can make a passing reference to the next one. This is subject to the N.I.R.C. being satisfied that the evidence is there, on sufficient grounds, under these premises which are enumerated in Clause 124. So any precipitate action by a Secretary of State, if it took place in hypothetical circumstances, would be checked by the Industrial Court, which, of course, will be independent of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Lee: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course one can say that that is the follow-up of Clause 124. But we are not arguing about what happens after the Secretary of State has made his reference; we are arguing about the conditions under which the right hon. Gentleman would first satisfy himself that he should make a reference to the Court. This is the issue of Clause 124. I repeat that I would not know how to make such a reference. I would not know the conditions.
Let us go back to 1926, which is the only case that I can think of. I should not have thought that, even then, the Clause was any answer to the problem, but I could understand those who support it saying that it was operative under those conditions. Short of that, I can remember no dispute in my adult life to which this Clause would be at all appropriate.
It seems that even the supporters of this Bill know that it is making a complete nonsense of all the propaganda by which the country was conditioned to accept this legislation. It has nothing whatever to do with the number of unofficial strikes or the number of days lost in unofficial strikes. It does not even

require strike action. It is something which to me—and I have some industrial knowledge—is complete gobbledegook, and it will make no sense at all under any circumstances.

Mr. David Mitchell: I listened with incredulity to the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). If what he says is true—and for the purposes of the argument I am prepared to accept his judgment—then he cannot conceive of irregular industrial action short of a strike which would be gravely injurious to the national interest or security. If there is no such circumstance there would be no prospect of the Minister managing to get a court order and, if he could not get a court order, then the fears of the right hon. Gentleman would be of no consequence.

Mr. Greville Janner: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I cannot give way. I know that the hon. Member is trying to get into the debate and I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity.
During his speech the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made four points which I noted carefully. He drew attention to the fact that there is a considerable similarity between the proposals of my right hon. Friend in this Bill and the cooling-off period which operates in the United States. He said that the use of the cooling-off period in the United States was subject to judicial restraint, by which I take it he means an application to the court. He said that never has the United States Government been rebuffed in its application to the court and that therefore the judiciary of the United States was a rubber stamp for the President.

Mr. Heffer: We must get this on the record. I was quoting from George Meany and Mr. Meany said:
… the Government's assertion that a strike creates or threatens a national emergency is supposedly subject to judicial review but no court"—
and he is talking about the United States—
has ever been willing to override the judgment of the Government on that. Thus in practice under Taft-Hartley a 'national emergency' is any labour dispute that the Government decides to so label

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for restating the point. I was doing my best to put it as fairly as I could. The Government of the United States takes great care and much advice before making an application to the court, because it does not wish to be shown to have made an application and to have been rebuffed. It is not the case that the court is in the pocket of the U.S. Government—very much the reverse. The U.S. Government does not dare move unless it is sure that it has a watertight case and can convince an independent court that it has such a case.
The hon. Gentleman went on to quote from Stephen Fay's article and referred to the fact that there is a ballot for the continuation of a strike. He said that many times, in the U.S., I think seven times in the case of the longshoremen, the ballot has gone for the continuation of the strike. This is true. But let us be clear that this is one of the major differences between the U.S. legislation and that proposed here. Under U.S. legislation the employer's last offer has to be put to a ballot. That ballot comes, I think, after 50 days of the cooling-off period have run.
9.45 p.m.
In this country the union says to its members, "Please vote for a continuation of the strike because we have not succeeded in negotiating a satisfactory settlement. If you vote for a continuation of the strike and for confidence in your union leaders, we will be able to secure a better offer from the employers than we have obtained so far".
Naturally, whenever these circumstances arise, the union will get its vote of confidence and there will be a concurrence with the union leadership not to accept the employer's last offer. For this reason the Government are right not to replica in our legislation this fault that exists in the American legislation.
By this state of affairs arising at this point of the cooling-off period, one is bound to get a heating up of the atmosphere, precisely when a settlement might be reached. Because of this fault in the American legislation, it is not being included in this legislation.
The hon. Member for Walton went on to refer to Mr. Gleason saying that em-

ployers never made the best offer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman discussed this matter with Mr. Gleason when he was in the United States. I did.

Mr. Heffer: I did not discuss this question with Mr. Gleason, though I discussed it with Mr. Reuther, Harry Bridges and every top trade union official with whom I could get in touch. Unfortunately, I was not in contact with Mr. Gleason.

Mr. Mitchell: I was more fortunate than the hon. Gentleman. I was able to speak to Mr. Gleason about this. I can, therefore, give the Committee the evidence necessary to support my argument, which is simply that Mr. Gleason takes the view that it has become a crutch—he used the word—in that employers do not make their last offer because in the case of, for example, longshoremen's disputes, it has become a habit of the U.S. Government to apply for a cooling-off period.
It has been used frequently and regularly in this one industry, as a result of which both sides in the industry take into their calculations when negotiating the probability that a cooling-off period will be slapped on should a dispute break out. It is to be hoped that the same sort of thing will not occur here. If it did, similar difficulties would arise.
In all other disputes, however—that is, in all disputes apart from those affecting the longshoremen—it has been used rarely and the parties do not know whether or not it will be used. In those circumstances, it cannot and does not enter into their calculations. It does not, therefore, have the disadvantages to which attention has been drawn.
The hon. Member for Walton then said that workers would still go on strike. However, U.S. experience is that on every occasion when an 80-day cooling-off period has been applied, it has been observed. Indeed, while I was in America talking to Mr. Gleason there was in operation a cooling-off period applying to his union because of a longshoremen's dispute.
Despite the rhetoric which hon. Gentlemen opposite have used, workers in the U.S. have carried out these court orders when they have been applied. In many cases, they have found them to be substantially to their advantage. I have no reason to suppose that the workers in


this country will take a different attitude. In two-thirds of the cases in which 80-day cooling-off orders have been applied in the U.S., the disputes have been resolved before the end of the cooling-off period.
One turns to the very important question of the circumstances in which it would be used in this country. It appears from the Clause that the Minister must satisfy an independent Industrial Court of two things. First, he must satisfy it that it is conducive to the settlement of a dispute that there should be a 60-day cooling off period and that it will assist in securing resolution of the dispute. Second, he must show that the strike has caused or would cause grave injury to the national economy, imperil national security, endanger a substantial number of lives or expose a substantial number of persons to disease or personal injury.
If the Secretary of State can satisfy the court that those things are at risk if the strike continues, will hon. Members opposite really tramp through the Lobbies tonight to suggest, in circumstances where in other countries two-thirds of the disputes have been resolved by an 80-day cooling-off period, that there should not here be applied a cooling-off period in cases in which there would be grave injury to the national economy, with lives and national security endangered? Do they consider that it is very important for a trade union to be allowed to continue with a strike—a strike which, if there were a cooling-off period, it could renew afterwards—regardless of the national economy, lives or security? If they do, they have reduced to a sorry state their assessment of what is in the interests of either their members or the nation, which hon. Members presumably seek to support.

Mr. Greville Janner: One strange feature of the debate, and especially of the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), is that it has been so often without regard to the wording of the Clauses which we are considering. The problem was well expressed by the hon. Member who said that it was honed so much that this process would be used sparingly because in his view the success of these Clauses would depend on their sparing use.
On the proper interpretation of Clause 124 read together with Clause 125, a
Vol. 812

Secretary of State has a complete and absolute discretion when he brings this matter to the court. I most respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). A Secretary of State who is anxious to use this procedure will be able to do so in connection with almost any dispute, actual or potential, as he sees fit. Whereas a Secretary of State has a complete discretion, the court does not have a complete discretion. The court is given only a discretion to consider the matter on the basis stated, and then it "shall" make an order. It is not given a discretion. The judge is not given the right to decide whether or not he thinks it proper or right to make an order. That is a right reserved for the Secretary of State, who is given far more power under these Clauses than any court.
Let us look at the wording of the Clause in that light:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State"—
this gives the Secretary of State a discretion in the matter; it is what appears to him—
that, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, industrial action, consisting of a strike, any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or a lock-out, has begun or is likely to begin —".
We have to take a trip into this new legal jungle and look back at Clause 6, which states what an irregular industrial action short of a strike is. It is a fairly broad definition.
A Secretary of State would be in a fair position to say that a strike is likely to begin when a group of union members or a group of workers in a plant have decided that they are not satisfied with the ordinary procedures and they start consulting. Is there then likely to be some irregular industrial action? The Secretary of State will decide whether he thinks there is.
The Secretary of State then has to look at Clause 124(2). Would this be
gravely injurious to the national economy"?
It has been said that in this modern economy, in which each plant is dependent on all the others, each union on the other, and each industry on the other, it only takes a breakdown in a small


plant to stop a great number of other plants, and that could be, in the eyes of the Secretary of State
injurious to the national economy".
Therefore, this could be applied easily and properly, within the meaning of the Clause, to almost any industrial situation which is likely to give rise to a strike. It is felt, rightly or wrongly, that any strike which is likely to give rise to cost inflation, as it described, is
injurious to the national economy".
I am not considering at present whether this is right or wrong; I am considering only what power appears to be granted to any Secretary of State under the Clause.

Mr. Cower: Does the hon. Gentleman notice the use of adjectives—for example, "gravely injurious" and "serious risk"? These are not ordinary terms.

Mr. Janner: I have had to argue before now whether a situation or an injury was grave, whether bodily harm was actual or grievous. These are lawyers' words subject to interpretation by the courts, and it is a question of opinion as to what is or is not serious. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because the court has to decide not beyond reasonable doubt that there is a grave risk but only that there are sufficient grounds for believing that there is such a risk. That is very different.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Surely the crucial words are "is fulfilled", which imply some meaningfulness.

Mr. Janner: I do not understand that intervention. The courts will have to interpret what Parliament means. God help the judges! It has been argued that the courts are creatures of Parliament. Let us use the word "creation". A new court is to be created by Parliament. It is a creation of Parliament. The judges are given the powers that we see fit to give them. Their power is not to make law but only to interpret the law as it is set forth in these Clauses.
So the Secretary of State must decide whether there are grounds for believing, first, that some "irregular industrial

action" is likely to begin which—this is the second limb—may be
gravely injurious to the national economy
and, third,
that, having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred".
I believe that that subsection need not be there at all, because every Tory Secretary of State believes that it is more conducive to a settlement if people are not out on strike. I do not believe that the subsection is likely to present any grave problem of conscience to hon. Members opposite.
Therefore, the Secretary of State must decide three matters. If these appear to him to be correct, once again he is given a second discretion. He—the Executive, the Government of the day, the representative of the Government—may. if he sees fit, in his absolute discretion, bring the matter before the Court.
10.0 p.m.
The Court is given its terms of reference in Clause 125, which says:
Where an application is made to the Industrial Court under section 124 of this Act, the Court, subject to its being satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the condition specified in subsection (2) of that section is fulfilled, shall make an order".
There are two points to note about that. The Court does not have to be satisfied that the situation is gravely injurious to the national economy, as hon. Members opposite have argued; it has only to consider whether there are sufficient grounds for believing that that is the case.
It is one of the lowest standards of proof that I know of anywhere in English law. In civil law it is necessary to prove matters on the balance of probabilities, and in criminal law it is necessary to prove them beyond reasonable doubt. This Bill spills over into criminal law, because if the worst comes to the worst it will result in criminal sanctions being imposed upon persons who do not accept it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am sorry, but if things get bad enough and the law is flouted and fines are imposed and people will not pay those fines they will be in contempt. The court will not stand by and allow its orders to be flouted. No court can do that. That would bring the law into disrepute.


All sorts of attacks have been made upon my honourable profession, from both sides of the Committee. It is about time some lawyer on the Opposition benches expressed his fears, as one who may be instructed to argue a case concerning this Bill. I fear that the Court will not have the powers that it should have to deal with the discretion placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. If the court makes an order and that order is flouted it will impose a sanction—otherwise the law will fall into disrepute.
The court has power to impose heavy fines, but I cannot imagine a union paying those enormous fines. That being so, it is not possible to say, "Do not bother"; the court will then be faced with a clear case of contempt, and either the court will be brought into contempt because it does not impose sanctions or orders will be made which people do not respect.
The essence of good law is that people should respect it. We found with certain road traffic Acts how difficult it was to make laws that the public did not feel to be to their benefit and with which they were not prepared to comply. The police were placed in a difficult position.
It is wrong to say that the judges are puppets. They do their best to apply the law, within the limitations of the powers given them by this House. The trouble with the Bill is that it does not give the court enough power, whereas it gives too much power to the Secretary of State. We are not enabling the court to curb those powers. I am not in favour of setting up a new court, and I am not in favour of these Clauses, but once we give the Secretary of State these powers it is wrong to argue that we need not worry about them because the great independent courts can curb the exercise of those powers.
The court has to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for believing that the conditions specified are fulfilled. That is a very simple and low burden of proof. The Clause goes on to provide not that the court can make an order; not that the judge has a discretion if he sees fit to make an order; not that he, like the Secretary of State, "may" take a stand; but that the court "shall" make an order under the Clause. It is

absolutely mandatory for the court to make an order. To my mind, if the court has to make a mandatory order under a Clause such as this it will cause such incredible ill-feeling that it is likely to bring the law into contempt. The Government ought, primarily for that reason, to consider most carefully the wording of these provisions if they are determined to bring in the procedure at all.
Happily—I am sure that this is agreed by hon. Members on both sides who come from my city—industrial relations in Leicester are, on the whole, good. In my view, however, legislation of this sort is likely to make those industrial relations deteriorate. It is likely to bring the courts into disrepute, and it will do infinite harm to the cause which the Government say they are pursuing.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are happy industrial relations in the city in which our respective constituencies lie. He has referred to the powers of the Secretary of State. Would he prefer the far greater powers which have been given to the Secretary of State under "In Place of Strife" to those proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Janner: Under the guillotine procedure we are discussing at the moment Clause 124, which I regard as very bad for the country.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. John Page: Hon. Members are making rather heavy weather of this Clause. In the middle of his speech, when he was going through the Bill and arguing against it, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) was helpful in putting the most convincing case in favour of the Clause.
I believe that Part VIII, the emergency procedures, is one of the Parts of the Bill most welcomed and looked forward to by people in the country as a whole. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) has left, because I usually admire him and I wanted to refer to some of the difficulties which he foresaw. There is a postal workers' strike in progress now, we recently had a dispute in


the electricity supply industry, and previously there was the municipal workers' dispute. I should expect the Secretary of State to have applied this procedure to the first two, though I rather doubt that he would have done the same for the municipal workers' dispute. That is a matter of opinion. In the public mind, the Government seem to have too little power to deal with these disputes which can lead to national emergency.
The Opposition say that this procedure will not work. Very well. After the Government, any Government, have tried it a couple of times and found it not successful, they will probably not use it again. It is a reserve power which they will have available to them and which I believe will be effective.
Now, a question for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Clause 124(3)(a) reads, in part:
Any application made by the Secretary of State … shall specify the persons (whether they are organisations of workers, officials of such organisations or other persons) appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible"—
and so on.
The same kind of consideration comes in Clause 125(4). I assume that those named organisations and persons will be included in the original order. If the injunction not to induce or to continue a dispute rests upon those named persons, what will happen if persons other than those named suddenly appear on the scene during the period of 60 days? Will they be covered by the original order, or will there have to be a further application to the court?
One of the extra advantages of Clause 124 is that it gives the period of 60 days within which a ballot under Clauses 127, 128 and 129 could take place. In the context of the strike we are having and the strikes we have had recently, that might produce a very helpful and sensible result reflecting the views of the members of the unions and other workers in the industries concerned.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-

West (Mr. Greville Janner) for making such a clear speech about the wording of the Clauses. When we look at Clause 124, and particularly subsection (1)(c), we may hope that a wise Secretary of State will never call upon the provision. Subsection (1)(c) says that if
… having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute …
it appears to the Secretary of State that
… it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation …
certain things follow. A wise Secretary of State would at once see that this emergency procedure is doomed to failure, and, therefore, would not use it.
My hon. Friend made a substantial point about the important subsection (2), pointing out that paragraphs (a) and (b) state very clearly two groups of grounds upon which the necessary emergency state is to be founded. Paragraph (a) contains the words
gravely injurious to the national economy".
I do not dispute for the purposes of this argument that if there is an industrial dispute imperilling the national security, creating serious risk of public disorder, endangering the lives of a substantial number of persons, or exposing a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury, these are serious situations that a Secretary of State conscientiously doing his duty is bound to take into account to the maximum of his powers. But I doubt whether the same standards apply to the words
gravely injurious to the national economy".
I disagree with the view of my hon. Friend that those are words of legal art. It seems to me that they are political words, and if they are, I doubt whether they should be construed by any court. This is a serious doubt. What have the Government Front Bench to say in reply to this criticism? How is it possible for the court to determine what is or is not
gravely injurious to the national economy"?
How will it be guided? If it is just left with those words, how can it properly direct itself to the question? The inquiry under Lord Wilberforce makes perfectly clear what kind of difficulties can be envisaged if those words remain and no guidance over and above them is given to the court as to how it is to proceed.


10.15 p.m.
Attention has rightly been drawn to the words of Clause 125, which have to be read with Clause 124 because they give it effect. The important words have been stressed by my hon. Friend. They state that
… the Court, subject to its being satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the condition specified in subsection (2) of that section"—
Clause 124—
is fulfilled, shall make an order under this section.
Not only is the standard of proof suspect but the risk is that, once the Clause is enacted, we shall be presented with a state of affairs analogous to that which used to operate in the production of documents.
The famous case here was the Cammell-Laird case in 1942. The conditions for the production of documents have been watered down somewhat, and a reasonable rule now operates in the courts, I understand. But in those days, and to some extent still, production of documents could be objected to by the Crown, notwithstanding that the Crown was not even a party. The appropriate Minister could certify that it would be injurious to the public interest to produce the documents or to disclose their contents.
I hope that the Government will deal with this second criticism. Are we to find that the court is to be satisfied by evidence as flimsy as that the grounds are sufficient to believe that the condition specified in subsection (2) of Clause 124 is fulfilled? Are we to have Ministerial certificates or affidavits produced to the court stating that a situation would be gravely injurious to the national economy? If that is how it is to be done, then again this smacks of a political decision and not something worthy of a judicial decision. It seems to me that the court is to be used as part of the Executive and not as a judicial body. That is the most fundamental criticism that one can make of a proposal to set up a new court.
My third point may not be as important as the first two points, but it is nevertheless important consequentially. Subsection (5) of Clause 125 states that an order may be made—it does not have
Vol. 812

to be made—specifying certain persons who are
… to take such steps (whether by way of withdrawing any instructions issued by that person or those persons) … for the purpose of securing that the industrial action to which the application for the order related is discontinued or … deferred …".
There cannot be the slightest doubt that we are face to face again with the ultimate sanction of the Bill—committal to prison for contempt of court. It has been said already, and no one can doubt it. The finger is clearly pointed at individuals who have been named by the Secretary of State in the original application. Other names can be added—and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who posed this question.
The important point is that people are named from the outset. Certain individuals immediately know that they are at peril. Hon. Members opposite may think this right, but we do not. What is important to notice is that the ultimate sanction is clear—committal for contempt if they are outside the four corners of the order. Such orders will be sweeping.
What will happen? Let us face the realities. The situation will be that of emergency, in which there is a disagreement, no doubt, about how far it is an emergency. On the one side, people will say that there are no gravely injurious consequences from this threatened industrial strike—that it is not even a threatened strike but an industrial dispute which may never result in a strike. On the other side, the Secretary of State will be saying that the situation is one of grave national peril.
There is bound to be that kind of disagreement, and in that kind of situation feelings will run high, and they will run high amongst many people, and those people can be swept up into the network of Clause 125(5) and they will be swept to one destination, which has already been mentioned, and that destination will be prison. It is all very well to have in prisons for civil reasons persons as though in criminal cases, but have the Government considered that under that Clause they will need new prisons, hundreds of new civil prisons?


If this is not that sort of situation, how are we to deal with the matter? The Government have to face the fact which is clear to us on this side—it certainly seems too clear with me, if not to hon. Members opposite—that the law of contempt will undergo very considerable changes if this Clause goes through. It

is no use praying in aid the fact that at the moment the courts rarely use this sanction, because in the future the situation will be transformed.
I ask the Government to consider these three matters seriously. They seem to me important, and I should particularly like the Government's reaction to the first two.

Mr. Gower: I was thinking that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) was speaking with great moderation, and I was rather sorry that he ended in that extravagant manner, calculated to arouse alarm and despondency, when he talked about criminal sanctions, because he knows perfectly well that if he or I went to the tailor and ordered a suit and did not then pay for it but had it on credit there might come a time when he or I would be faced with that sort of criminal sanction over a civil debt.
The hon. and learned Member was spreading alarm and despondency rather as was the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) when he disparaged the position of this new court and described it as a puppet being created by the Secretary of State. I do hope that the hon. Member will regret those remarks on thinking about them, and that he will realise that this legislation will set up a new division of the High Court which will be consistent with the rest of our High Court of Justice which has had such a splendid position of impartiality and, indeed, of interpreting Statutes against the Executive Government of the day on many occasions. If there is any inadequacy in this Bill, if there is something in this Bill which the court will deem should be interpreted against the Government, I am satisfied that the Court will go against the Secretary of State or whomsoever appears on behalf of the Government.

Mr. James A. Dunn: The hon. Member will recall that following the passage of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act the interpretation placed upon the Act later did not go against the Government but rather perpetuated some things which the Government did not want, and we feel the same about this Clause.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman and I can discuss that on another occasion. It is rather involved.
I think that this Clause is a valuable and sensible addition to the Bill, and I hope that a majority of people in this Committee will feel it to be so, including hon. Members on the Opposition side. They have asked: Why do we need to include powers of this nature in this
Vol. 812

Bill? Others have gone further and said: Why do we need the Bill? It arises, of course, from the history of many years. The hon. and learned Member for Leith must be aware that his own party, when in Government, were deeply concerned about this matter, were deeply concerned about the state of industrial relations, were deeply concerned about the ills of the British economy. Otherwise they would not have gone to such great trouble, setting up a Commission, as they did, and then going into the matter and drawing up a whole document including proposals for a cooling-down period.
I respectfully suggest that nothing could be more valuable in certain cases—not in all cases, but in certain cases—than a cooling-down period. This is not designed to prevent a strike permanently. It is designed to lessen the powers of workers to strike: it is designed to give time for cooling off when the attitudes of the parties to the dispute might harden.
We have seen evidence again and again that once a strike has been called and people have ceased working, attitudes harden and people take up positions which make it more difficult for a settlement to be achieved. Is it not conceivable that a cooling-down period of not more than 60 days will in certain circumstances be most valuable?
Sufficient guidelines are set down to achieve the control over the actions of the Secretary of State and of the Executive which is desirable. The Secretary of State has first to satisfy himself of certain premises. This is not an entirely free political choice for him. It is similar to the action of a Minister acting in an appellate jurisdiction in a planning case, where he does not exercise his political function. He would be deciding whether the circumstances would justify him in making application to the court, and the final decision would be for the court.
The requirements set down are fairly high. There must be a serious risk of public disorder, not mere risk. The industrial action must be gravely injurious to the national economy, not merely injurious or likely to be injurious. The industrial action must be likely to imperil national security, endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons or expose


a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury. These are fairly high requirements, and any Government would be foolish not to provide in the Bill for a standstill of up to 60 days.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the dustmen's strike would come into that category?

Mr. Gower: There will be strikes of all kinds which will come into one or other of the categories, but it will be for the Secretary of State to satisfy himself of certain conditions. Thereafter it will be for the Industrial Court to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds.
After all that, the maximum effect will be not a limitation of the democratic right of people to take part in an industrial strike or to take preparatory action, but merely an order laying upon them a reasonable duty to forgo their democratic rights for a limited period specified by the court, which at the most could be 60 days. These provisions are sufficiently circumscribed to achieve the result which is required by two or three of my hon. Friends; namely, that the power should not be used too freely.
In that setting this provision can be a valuable and useful addition to the Bill, and in certain circumstances it could prevent some of the abuses which have happened in the past, abuses which have been most exasperating to people of all parties. Not only Conservatives and Liberals but many Labour supporters are deeply anxious about the future welfare of this country, and hope that this Bill will be a great success.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: One of the features of this Bill which has concerned many people in the trade union movement has been the wide definition that is often introduced. This has, naturally, given rise to a number of contributions in which wider claims are made. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) at one point argued that some 25 per cent. of capital now employed in Britain was American-owned and, by implication, he seemed to be saying that this was a reason for introducing some new legislation that was either copied

from or was very close to the Taft-Hartley laws.
I would not attempt to burden the Solicitor-General with the sins of his supporters, but I warn him that at the end of the day it will be his duty to justify the introduction of these provisions. He will be able to do so only by proving to the Committee and to the country that they will lead to better industrial relations in the future. That is what this is all about. He stands or falls on being able to adduce such reasonable evidence.
Many hon. Members have referred to their experience of trade union matters in America, but that does not mean a priori that they have the right to believe that their opinion has more right to be considered than the opinion of hon. Members who have gained their industrial experience in this country. We must look at the facts of the situation and the circumstances in which these provisions are to be introduced, and must seek to show why hon. Members on this side of the Committee are opposed to them.
The Donovan Commission is helpful in this respect. Paragraph 421 says:
The record as regards the use of the Taft-Hartley procedure is as follows. In all but one of 24 cases in which injunctions were granted a standstill period was successfully imposed.
There is no need to talk about the courts being creatures of the Government and of the President of the United States, but the evidence is clearly that when the President wanted an injunction he got it.
Paragraph 422 says:
In the United Kingdom when a major strike occurs or appears imminent the Government has a wide range of action which it can take if it feels it desirable to intervene.
The Commission outlines the wide range of action available to the Government.
In paragraph 423 the Commission says:
The record under the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States has been worse than the record in our country. We have been singularly free from strikes in recent years which would have come within the scope of a 'Taft-Hartley' kind of procedure.
That is clear, straight-forward language produced by a Commission which studied the subject for nearly three years. I see no reason that I or anybody else should seek to substitute ourselves as


being necessarily better informed than that Commission. The purpose of a Royal Commission is to carry some element of credibility and acceptability as a body of reasonable and intelligent men who have been given this job by the Government. The Donovan Commission came to this conclusion, and it is a valuable one. I see no reason why it should not be introduced into the record.
If that is so, the burden of proof is again on the shoulders of the Government. Why do they wish to ignore that the record under Taft-Hartley in the United States has been much worse than our own, and why do they want to say that the instruments at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government are insufficient, and that further measures must be introduced; for example, a cooling-off period?
The second point is one which causes many hon. Members on this side of the Committee great concern. It is the loose drafting of the Clause which contains, among others, the phrase "any irregular industrial action"—[Interruption.] I carry the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite when I merely quote a phrase from the Bill. I know that many of them want the widest possible interference with the rights of trade unions to represent the interests of their members. The Solicitor-General admitted today that the Government had been under pressure to introduce far wider and more far-reaching regulations on picketing. He did not want to do that, but he has introduced some part of what was required. In view of that, 1 think that I can safely ignore the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. We are dealing with the Government.
The Government have included the phrase "any irregular industrial action". That causes us concern. Like other Clauses which are widely drawn, this introduces an element which will make it very easy for the Secretary of State to make up his mind about when he will invoke these powers. There used to be criticism about a Secretary of State trying to take too much power unto himself. Here is a case in point. As this Clause and the following one are drawn, if the Secretary of State once makes up his mind that a situation with which he is dealing comes under the provisions of

Clause 124, the presumption is very strong that the court shall then follow him and agree with his proposition.
I say that the presumption is very strong. I do not say that the courts are automatically obliged to agree with the Secretary of State. We know about the way in which the courts act and about their independence. That is common ground. But if the word "shall" is used in a subsequent Clause, the presumption is that they shall follow the Secretary of State unless there are overwhelming countervailing reasons to prove that the Secretary of State has acted contrary to all that is reasonable.

Mr. Percival: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has got rid of the suggestion that the courts are not independent. But he has it wrong when he talks about presumptions. The court has to be "satisfied on the evidence". Evidence has to be presented by the Secretary of State in support of his application. That evidence has to be so good that the judge is able to say at the end of the day that he is satisfied on the evidence. The presumption is the other way round.

Mr. Mendelson: There is nothing about that in the Bill. Those are the hon. and learned Gentleman's words.

Mr. David Waddington: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must give me a chance to deal with the intervention of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). Those are the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. I am saying that, because the word "shall" is used in a subsequent Clause, the presumption is that the court shall, having satisfied itself, be under an obligation to do what the Secretary of State is proposing. What does "any irregular industrial action" mean? Where is this extension of the Secretary of State's powers justified? Nowhere.
So the only reason why the Government want this is to reduce the bargaining power of the trade unions during or in the approach to an industrial dispute. Of course this does not cause any alarm and despondency to lion. Members opposite. Many of them have said this many times. They are interested in reducing the bargaining power of the unions. But


they do not admit it in these debates. I do not see why they should not. We on this side have always admitted that we want to keep the bargaining power of the unions strong and vigorous and unfettered, because they are the shield of the working people.
I cannot understand hon. Members' reluctance to come clean, since they often represent employers' federations and say that they are keen to see these powers reduced. That is not an insult. This House would have been meaningless in the past without the representation of interests, and I do not see why hon. Members opposite should be offended if I say that that is their interest—[Interruption.] At least I seem to be carrying one charming hon. Member with me on this.
The Solicitor-General also has to prove, in opposition to the view of Donovan, that we would not suffer from the kind of disputes which the Americans have suffered under the Taft-Hartley Act—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: No, I will not give way. I had some experience of the kind of intervention which the hon. Gentleman made in my hon. Friend's speech.
The burden of proof here is on the Solicitor-General, if we are to be free of a Taft-Hartley situation. An example of the other powers at the Secretary of State's disposal is the court of inquiry, which has the advantage of great flexibility. It is not a blunt instrument: its function is not to hand down an award. It is not coercive, but points in the direction of the settlement. When a Minister of Labour or Secretary of State for Employment decides to set up a court of inquiry, he is not taking sides.
Peaceful and effective industrial relations are threatened if the side representing the work people suspects that the Secretary of State has moved to one side and is using coercive instruments to weaken the efforts of the unions to represent their members. The instruments which Donovan examined, which have been available in this country for many years, are particularly designed not to create that suspicion—conciliation, courts of inquiry, assessors, tribunals and so on.
When I argued it with him, the Secretary of State himself did not dissent from

my general proposition that he should always be in a neutral position. Like the Lord Chancellor, he is in a special position. He could not perform his function properly, if he were seen to be leaning on one side or the other. [Laughter.] I do not know whether the two hon. Gentlemen who are so amused by this have graced our proceedings before. I have not seen them before. They seem to have strayed in from some other room where they usually spend this hour of the day. But those who have been here following the debate will recall that at least on this point the Secretary of State and I agreed.
The right hon. Gentleman must explain why, with these flexible instruments and in the light of what Donovan has said about the American experience with Taft-Hartley and ours without it, he finds it necessary to impose this procedure on our industrial relations.

10.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The basic case for these proposals is to be found in the analysis made by many people but put most succinctly by Mr. Andrew Shonfield in his addition to the Report of the Donovan Commission. [Interruption.] We will come to the more telling witnesses later. He said:
With the growing dependence of people on the reliable performance of services required for tolerable living in crowded urban communities, the employment of collective power of groups of producers to disrupt the lives of people who have no means of helping themselves raises new problems. It is no longer possible to accept the traditional notion of the individual workplace as a separate and largely autonomous estate, where employers and employees are able to conduct their quarrels with little or no regard to the effects of what they do …".
That is a situation which has been impressing itself upon the people of this country and upon Governments of all parties, and it is from that kind of reasoning that we go on to consider the proposals before the Committee.
These are proposals designed to meet or avert the possible impact upon the national economy or the national health or safety of a strike or threatened strike or lockout which could be serious or prolonged. The important point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who has studied the whole of this aspect of our proposals with great care, is that this is designed for exceptional cases


which are likely to inflict serious damage far outside the range of the people affected by the initial dispute.
Several hon. Members have raised the point that these provisions are intended to apply to irregular industrial action short of a strike. That is defined in Clause 6. The only point I need make is that irregular industrial action short of a strike which is in breach of contract can, as the Committee and the country knows, be as serious and as damaging as a full-scale strike or lock-out and can call for the application of these remedies. As the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said to my right hon. Friend on Monday, the findings of the Wilberforce Committee about the recent electricity go-slow include this in paragraph 11.9:
We reached the conclusion that in many areas what happened was not a 'work to rule' but a breach of rule, that is a breach of the normal arrangements for the employment of the workers.
That is a clear and recent illustration of the potentially damaging and serious effects of irregular industrial action short of a strike and amply justifies the inclusion of that idea within these provisions.
Given that this provision is designed to meet that kind of situation, I would address some remarks to hon. Members opposite who suggest that the allocation of political discretion and judicial decision-taking powers is not here correctly worked out. When we look at the provisions of Clause 124(1) the matter which remains exclusively for the Secretary of State to satisfy himself about is that contained in 124(1)(c):
that, having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred.
It is essentially a matter for the expertise of the Secretary of State, who must assess what the prospects are of a further delay in relation to the onset of a strike in his desire to help the parties towards a conciliation. It is
in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, industrial action, consisting of a strike, any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or a lockout, has begun or is likely to begin
that the Secretary of State must make up his mind and form his first view, but the Industrial Court must be satisfied in accordance with Clause 125(1),

and the only area left to his experienced political assessment is the likelihood of a delay contributing to a settlement of the impending dispute. It is in relation to the other matters mentioned in the Clause, where something may
be gravely injurious to the national economy … or … imperial national security
that he must go before the Industrial Court and satisfy it.
The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) suggested that he would find it difficult to see how any Secretary of State could ever conclude favourably towards action in relation to Clause 124(1), while the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) said he could hardly see a situation in which a Secretary of State could fail to conclude in favour of action. As in so many matters, the truth lies between these two extreme views; that the Secretary of State could certainly form his view, but that he would then have to satisfy the Industrial Court about it.
Let us consider the rôle which the Industrial Court will play. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) suggested that to invite the court to consider whether action would be
gravely injurious to the national economy … or … imperil national security
would be to leave the court with a political and not a legal question to be considered. However, the Committee must remember the kind of tests and questions which the Restrictive Practices Court has been facing and answering in the 15 years since it was established by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). That court has not become, any more than this one will become, a creature of the Government. It will need in approaching these questions, as Clause 125(1) points out to:
be satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the condition specified … is fulfilled".
The effect of that provision is clear. The Secretary of State, if in his judgment he decides to apply, will have to make out a convincing case before the Industrial Court—which will be as independent as any other court in this country—on the basis of reliable and adequate evidence.


Hon. Gentlemen opposite have begun to suggest that this will be thrusting into the hands of the Minister an intolerable discretion, that the matter will be entirely at large, that in any event the situation does not call for this procedure and that the definition of what is a serious or gravely injurious prospect is inadequate.
This compels me to return to the proposals which were made by the last Labour Government. I remind the Committee—and I shall shortly be inviting the help of hon. Gentlemen opposite over this—that one of the immediate steps proposed in the interim Industrial Relations Bill which the Labour Government had decided to bring before the House was the implementation of the conciliation pause, or cooling-off period, of, in that case, 28 rather than 60 days.

Mrs. Castle: To which interim Bill is the hon. and learned Gentleman referring?

The Solicitor-General: I am referring to the right hon. Lady's speech the day after her right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned the incomes policy to introduce a Bill in its place, and on 16th April, 1969, the right hon. Lady spoke of
The interim Industrial Relations Bill which the Government have decided to bring before the House".
One of the matters to be included in that was this:
The third immediate step which we need to take is to secure a change in attitudes towards the honouring of collective agreements".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1181–3.]
In that context, hon. Gentlemen opposite were still putting forward the conciliation pause proposal in paragraph 93 of "In Place of Strife". I know not how far the drafting of that interim Bill had proceeded, but it was being pressed forward with great urgency by the Labour Government. Indeed, it was to be introduced, we were told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in that Session of Parliament. So one imagines that some progress must have been made towards the preparation of that Bill—I know not how much.
I ask the right hon. Lady to help the Committee on this matter. It is being

suggested that the powers in Clauses 124 and 125 are unduly discretionary and leave too much in the hands of the Secretary of State, that they define with insufficient clarity the risks in respect of which they have to be exercised and that they are insufficiently controlled by the court which has to be satisfied that the situation exists.
I remind the Committee of the way in which it was put forward by the right hon. Lady in the situation we are now discussing, where this conciliation pause was necessary. The method proposed was to give the Secretary of State a discretionary reserve power to secure a conciliation pause. The power would have been used only if the strike or lock-out continued and the effects were likely to be serious. How tight and precise is that formulation? Is it not ironic to find hon. Members opposite criticising us for precision in drafting when we have spelt out clearly that the court has to be satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the strike or lock-out, as set out in Clause 124(2)—

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please differentiate between a White Paper, which contained proposals for discussion, and a Bill before the Committee, which he wishes to put into the law of this land? I have said before, and I repeat, that it is a mask for the complete bankruptcy of the Government's ideas.

The Solicitor-General: The Committee appreciates the extent to which the hon. Gentleman is impelled to rise to his feet whenever one refers back to that proposal. The right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), both in contrast to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), voted in favour of "In Place of Strife" as a basis for legislation. The right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Doncaster were at the Department of Employment and Productivity, as it then was. The right hon. Lady, who was telling the House about the interim Bill to be introduced, may be in a position to tell the Committee exactly how they were going to control a situation the effects of which were likely to be serious if they have improvements to offer in respect of subsection (2).


I invite consideration of another aspect. It is suggested that the Secretary of State is being given too wide a discretion. The Committee sees plainly the extent to which a court independent of the executive would have to be satisfied on this matter to which I have referred. Perhaps the Committee can be told whether the discretionary reserve power which the right hon. Lady would have claimed to make an order would or would not have been subject to the approval of any court. The answer is plain. No court would have had the power to consider that. The best to be hoped for would have been that such an order might have been subject to review by the House, by an affirmative or negative Resolution, but not action.
I invite the Committee to reach the conclusion that consideration by a court independent of the Secretary of State whether or not the test had been fulfilled is likely to be a great deal more objective, tight and specific than the consideration which might have been given by hon. Members opposite if they had been invited to go through the Lobbies time after time endorsing orders made by the right hon. Lady under her interim Industrial Relations Bill, in the same way as they were required to do so in respect of orders made under the Prices and Incomes Act. What kind of independent scrutiny or control would that have been compared with that suggested by us?

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged us on this point. Surely there is a fundamental difference between the responsibility to the Committee, and, subsequently, the electorate, of a Minister for what are Governmental decisions for which he is answerable to Parliament and, on the other hand, the proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting to the Committee which would enable a Minister to shelter behind the decision of a court and thus avoid answering for his actions, evading responsibility on the ground that this was the decision of the court.

11.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Of course there is a difference. The Minister, proceeding as proposed in "In Place of Strife", would have had to come to the House of Commons and would have called upon

her loyal supporters to endorse the Order she was bringing before the House of Commons. That she may or may not have achieved, but that would have been the only hoop through which she would have had to pass.
Under our proposals, the Minister must reach the conclusion that he may prove this to the court. He must go before the court and satisfy the court. He may still be called upon to justify in the House of Commons the wisdom or unwisdom of his decision to apply. Hon. Members can imagine the situation which could arise if the Secretary of State, having decided to apply to the court, found that he was unable to satisfy the court. At least there would have been independent scrutiny challenging him and showing him that he had made a completely wrong judgment. That would be a far more effective discipline and sanction than that which the House of Commons alone could have exercised. That is the strength of our proposal, in contrast to that put forward by the previous Government.
The other criticism which has been made is that these proposals will in some way impair the Secretary of State's freedom of action in this kind of situation. As the Donovan Commission said, there is much to be said for leaving the Secretary of State with a variety of alternative approaches; and nothing in this departs from or in any way erodes the Secretary of State's power to consider the appointment of a court of inquiry, to undertake conciliation, or to undertake any of the other measures which he can currently undertake. What this does is to give him an additional weapon, plus the ballot. It gives the Secretary of State additions to the flexibility of his armoury. It increases the room for manoeuvre. It gives him useful additions or alternatives.

Mr. Orme: At the beginning of his remarks the hon. and learned Gentleman prayed in aid the minority report of Mr. Andrew Shonfield. Did Mr. Shonfield dissent from the Donovan Commission's recommendation that this matter should not be brought within the scope of legal operation?

The Solicitor-General: Mr. Shonfield proposed a number of additional alternative remedies. His diagnosis was


accurate, and it was presumably on the basis of his diagnosis that the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends went further than Donovan in the areas we have just been discussing. We are not frozen to the methods proposed by Donovan.
This is an additional remedy, to which the country is entitled in this exceptional, serious, situation. It is an equally balanced remedy in respect of strikes or lock-outs. The point made by the hon. Member for Walton and which may be made by the right hon. Lady was that at least the conciliation clause provided for the return to the status quo. This is the one distinction which the right hon. Lady drew in a previous debate.
The point to be remembered is that the argument about whether to return to the status quo can give rise to certain strikes when management have made a decision to the advantage of the employees. The kind of strike with which these proposals are likely to be concerned is not likely to be the kind of strike—

Mr. Heffer: There are different kinds of strike.

The Solicitor-General: Exactly. So the distinction becomes plain. I am glad to have that acknowledged. This kind of strike is the serious—quite probably national or very large-scale—strike posing a serious threat, almost certainly founded upon a claim for changes in wages and conditions of employment. It is in that kind of strike where the return to the status quo, as hon Members opposite acknowledge, is not likely to be a relevant question.

Mr. Harold Walker: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is intending to continue making this comparison it is important to get the thing right. He will recall that one of the strikes that had a profound impact upon the motor car industry at about the time of "In Place of Strife" was the Girling strike. That strike was concerned not about "who does what" but about the suspension of certain individuals. In that kind of situation the issue was the arbitrary action of the employer, and we would have required the employer to return to the status quo as a basis for a return to work. In that situation—the kind with which the Clause is intended to deal—what would the Solicitor-

General require the employer to do? Would he require him to carry on this misdemeanour while telling the boys to go back to work?

The Solicitor-General: That is a different kind of strike—as the hon. Member for Walton said. I am not sure about that strike. The scale would have to be examined closely. I cannot say whether the Girling strike would have qualified as one that was gravely injurious to the national economy. It certainly did a great deal of damage, as the hon. Member for Walton knows through his connection with Merseyside.
It is an exceptional case that would require a return to the status quo in that situation. It is probably the other kind of strike with which the Measure proposes to deal. But what we are arguing about is apparently not the admissibility of taking, on behalf of society, powers to stay or postpone the commencement of a strike which can be doing serious damage—

Mr. Orme: We are dissenting completely from that.

Mr. John Mendelson: We have been consistent in our opposition.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is entitled to say that he has been consistent in his opposition to almost anything. I am conducting my discussion with those of his hon. and right hon. Friends who have in the past put forward proposals designed to meet this kind of thing. I suggest that these proposals are fairly balanced and sensibly designed to deal with the kind of strikes that threaten the gravest risk to the economy and the safety and health of this country.
I come now to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Walton. It has been suggested that simply because these proposals are put forward as a result of a study of some comparable proposals that have worked in the United States they are to be condemned. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) advanced arguments to justify these proposals, in this form, being adopted in this country. It has been said more than once from the benches opposite


that the North American experience does not justify any kind of consideration being given to the proposals that are working there.
I remind the Committee of the facts: since 1947 there have been 29 cases where a board of inquiry has been appointed. Under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act applications for injunctions have been made in 25 cases. That is about one a year, which indicates how exceptional they are. In each of the 25 cases where injunctions have been granted they have been complied with. During the period when the injunction has been in force a settlement has taken place in 12 out of the 25 cases; a partial settlement has taken place in three out of the 25, and in 10 out of the 25 the settlement took place after the injunction had been discharged.
Those figures are not very different from those in respect of a slightly earlier period. Paragraph 421 of the Donovan Report says:
In sixteen cases"—
but of 24—
a settlement was reached during or shortly after the stand-still period, but in seven cases stoppages did take place or were resumed after it.
On either analysis, therefore, on the up-to-date figures or the Donovan figures, it is plain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, that in two-thirds of the situations the strike or lockout was postponed, so that it never took place. How anyone can argue that that is a record of failure I fail to follow.

Mr. Orme: What does the Donovan Report carry on to say?

The Solicitor-General: The Donovan Report carries on to reach a conclusion which does not at all follow from the facts set out. It is surely plain that if a remedy has been used and has been successful in two cases out of three, it is at least not something to be discarded on the basis of prejudice. It is for that reason that we have considered the same kind of approach to this problem in this country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport drew attention to the fact that in the longshoremen's dispute the reason why, in that industry, it has not been successful in North America is that it has been over-used.

It has become part of the bargaining process. But in the other sectors and other industries where it has been employed in North America it has been a useful and valuable addition to the remedies available in the hands of the Government of the United States. It is upon the same basis that I commend it to this country in the context of this Bill.
This is not a slavish copy or imitation either of the proposals made in "In Place of Strife" designed to the same end, or of the proposals in effect for many years in North America.

Mr. John Mendelson: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He should know that very well. But, on the American experience, would he not agree that it has led to very long strikes, carefully planned to take in the cooling-off period, and that that is one of the reasons why the Donovan Commission came to its conclusions. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman ignore that?

The Solicitor-General: I do not ignore it. The difference between the nature and length of American strikes as opposed to our strikes is something that we have commented on in the context of other debates. But it is not attributable to the existence of the 60-day cooling-off period of the Taft-Hartley Act. The Taft-Hartley cooling-off period as I have told the Committee, has achieved success and the avoidance of strikes in two-thirds of the cases.
The fact that American strikes tend to be longer than ours but far less frequent is because there is a record of stability during long-term contracts and the parties prepare for the bargaining situation at the end of the contract. That is certainly a much healthier aspect. But it has nothing whatever to do with these proposals.

Mr. Heffer: On the question of the number of disputes settled by the cooling-off period, may I put this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman? A considerable number of these disputes had not reached the stage of becoming actual strikes. Therefore, how can the Solicitor-General say that in this country our normal D.E.P. conciliation machinery


could have been used in those circumstances without having to apply for a cooling-off period? This is something that no one will ever know, but we would have used an entirely different kind of machinery. Therefore, the argument that the method to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred has proved successful is quite invalid because we may well have arrived at a successful conclusion without the cooling-off period being used.

The Solicitor-General: The comment that I make on that intervention is that I hope the Committee has noticed the extent to which the hon. Member has shifted his ground completely. The case with which he started the debate on this Clause was to the effect that everybody could see that this procedure had not worked in North America. He has now, I understand, suggested that the reason why the procedure has been successful in North America is that the whole of the rest of the system is different there. He cannot have his argument both ways. Does the hon. Gentleman think that conciliation is something known only in St. James's Square in this country? Of course not. [Interruption.] The United States Federal mediation and conciliation service has a long experience and has done a great deal of work in this kind of situation, just as corresponding services have done comparable service in other countries.
What we are arguing about here is whether, when we have mediation, conciliation, courts of inquiry and all the other remedies, it is legitimate and necessary to have this additional remedy. I put it to the Committee that in the conditions facing this country today it is plain beyond argument that there are some strikes and lockouts, some threats of strikes and lockouts, which pose such a grave threat to the economy and the safety of the country that it is not only sensible but vital for these new powers to be given to the Secretary of State, subject to the careful control which is set out in the subsequent Clauses.
The case for that is proved by the experience in North America, by the extent to which the last Government moved in the same direction, and by the extent to which these proposals have long been

before the people of this country and were overwhelmingly endorsed at the last General Election.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The Solicitor-General has given a number of general answers to the general questions and criticisms which have been put to him. In the main, he gave patient answers, but I wish that he had a little more patience and allowed perhaps two other hon. Members on this side—my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and myself—who were on their feet, to put one or two more questions to him before he replied to the debate.
I have some specific questions to put. Throughout his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman related his argument, as did other hon. Members opposite, to the general words,
gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security, or to create a serious risk of public disorder"—
or to the other general phrases in subsection (2)(b).
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) claimed that with all the questions facing his constituents on prices, unemployment, commuter travel and the rest, this was the one Clause for which they were clamouring and there would be jubilation after it had been passed. At least, the Solicitor-General confirmed his other remark, that these are reserve powers to be used in only a few cases, or, perhaps, never used at all.
Only one hon. Member opposite gave a concrete example of a situation in which the Secretary of State might use these powers, and he spoke of a work-to-rule in the National Radar Defence Corps. Incidentally, I have never understood why working to rule should be wrong, except that it may indicate that there is something wrong with the rules. Working to rule of itself seems perfectly right in any circumstances, but, at any rate, that was the example which the hon. Gentleman gave.
Will the Solicitor-General give examples—they must be in the Government's mind—of the kind of situation in which they would use these powers? They may wish not to be too specific, but it is not unreasonable to ask that they spell out the


circumstances, or give examples of particular circumstances, in which an industrial dispute would be brought within the Clause.
Do they envisage that they would use these powers to refer the Post Office workers' strike to the Industrial Court, or would they decide to wait until the strike had been joined by the telephonists and telegraphists?
Another example: if the National Union of Mineworkers proposed a ballot on a national strike, would that be a situation in which the Government might have to invoke the powers? If only the Yorkshire or South Wales miners talked of coming out on strike, they might not wish to use them. If the electrical workers in the engineering industry talked of a work-to-rule they would not want to use them, but if those workers came out on full official strike they would have to use them.
Conservative hon. Members have made general arguments that could mean almost anything to anyone. Very few people could disagree with the wording of paragraphs (a) and (b), but what do the Government mean by them? Their interpretation may be very different from ours.
If the Solicitor-General could give me some indication of the industrial circumstances in which the powers might be invoked, that would be helpful. It would certainly be interesting.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have heard practically all the debate on the Clause, and, unlike some hon. Members, I have listened to much of the debate on the other Clauses. This is the first time I have felt myself drawn into the debate, because it is an interesting and very important subject.
I have been impressed by the style, if not always the content, of the contributions by the Solicitor-General. The content of his speech was singularly weak tonight. I do not feel obliged by anything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) proposed at any time, or by what was discussed within the Parliamentary Labour Party or with the T.U.C. Governments can be wrong, including Conservative Governments. So that line of argument takes us nowhere, though it might be clever debating and might make an impression on hon. Members opposite, who do not understand

some of the problems put forward in "In Place of Strife", to certain parts of which I take strong exception. It is a wee bit pointless if, in a serious discussion on a serious subject that is the best the Government Front Bench can do. I am not concerned with what the Labour Government or individual Labour Members proposed. I am concerned about the effect of this Bill on industrial relations as from now. While the Solicitor-General might think that he is scoring debating points, he is not impressing me with this line of argument.
I recognise, as I am sure every hon. Member does, that there are serious problems when one small group of people can hold the country to ransom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Before hon. Members opposite start applauding, let me expand a little. If it is true that we want to go back to the good old days when, the miners could come out against an individual mineowner with no serious dislocation in the community, fair enough. But we are not going back to those days. Modern developments in industry or society inevitably mean that a few key people in any group of industries have a power held by no group of comparable workers 50 or 100 years ago.
The answer is not to ask: What small group of workers can we try to bring. under legislation to deny them the right that other workers have? This is a problem that we must all face up to. That solution denies the principle that all men are reasonable. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not".] There are some people in business circles, in owning circles, who have such power that they can, influence the price of many commodities, and the law has to some extent tried to prevent this happening. Power does not lie just in the hands of a small group of
unidentified, apparently irresponsible anarchists who can disrupt the whole nation. I am sorry that the Solicitor-General has left the Chamber, although I realise that he has been here almost since this debate started.
I am not a lawyer or even an ex-trade union official. I am just an ordinary Member of Parliament who likes to be given some examples. If we cannot deal in hypothetical situations, at least the Government should try to apply some of their theories to strikes which have taken


place in the past. What was the example which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave? The power workers' dispute. What did his case rest on? Not that they had worked to rule but that there had been a breach of the rules.
I worked in the Post Office, subject to all the rules of being a civil servant and the rest, and if I had had anything to do with the Post Office dispute I would have got the workers to work to rule. They could have achieved virtually the same effect, certainly over a period of four or five weeks, as they have achieved by completely withdrawing their labour. That would have been working to rule. Would the Post Office dispute be caught up in this machinery? At what stage and how does the Department first of all decide that a situation cannot be conducive to a settlement by negotiation? Where does it get its information? Is there some kind of notification procedure whereby, when there are rumblings about a strike, the Department is informed? Who will inform'? Not the workers. The employers will inform. The first obstacle to overcome is how the Department gets to know whether and at what stage it should come into the picture. I do not think that that is necessarily a good start to the procedure. It is interposing some kind of machinery that does not make sense.
Surely the Government can give some examples. The information will come from the employers. Would the process apply to the second condition? Are the Government saying that they are not going to lay down any guidelines for the court to operate under? This is the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) was trying to make. Who will decide what is
gravely injurious to the national economy"?
Let us take the Ford strike as an example. It has been argued that the Ford strike has been responsible for a loss of investment in this country. Is that
gravely injurious to the national economy"?
Would the Under-Secretary of State like to have a go at trying to define what is
gravely injurious to the national economy"?
What about the airlines? Is an airline strike "gravely injurious"? Would a domestic airline strike not be "gravely

injurious" whereas a strike on an international airline would be? Would it be injurious because of prestige? We have heard of the implications of Concorde and Rolls-Royce. What is meant by
gravely injurious to the national economy"?
What about the dustmen's strike? What about strike of sewerage workers? Would they be caught by the third condition, that of exposing
a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease"?
I am just a simple back bencher. I have no responsibility for any mistakes which the Labour Government may have made—and they made some. We have to be tolerant and broadminded about these things. But I argue that the present Government are in the process of making one of the greatest mistakes in political life. Many hon. Members opposite claim that trade unionists outside do not understand the provisions of the Bill. I do not blame them if that is so because I do not understand some of the provisions. But I am at least trying to get some information from the Government to help me understand Clause 124.
So far, despite all the legal brilliance and knowledge of the Solicitor-General, I have not received any. I hope it is not too late, even at this hour, to get some information, with some examples, which we could use in convincing trade unionists that they have nothing to fear. That is the least the Government ought to be able to provide on this occasion.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Orme: I just want to underwrite what some of my hon. Friends have said about this Clause. The Solicitor-General did not answer the question: what will be the effect of imposing a cooling-off period? Will it result in the type of solution which he suggested? The only law with which to compare this is the United States law, the Taft-Hartley.
We have disputed Donovan in the past, but in this case Donovan, after examining the United States situation, where they have written evidence and documents submitted, was unanimous in coming down against having in this country the Taft-Hartley type of development. The Solicitor-General quoted paragraph 421.


I would ask him to look at it again. He quoted:
In all but one of 24 cases in which injunctions were granted, a stand-still period was successfully imposed. In sixteen cases a settlement was reached during or shortly after the stand-still period, but in seven cases stoppages did take place or were resumed after it.
The last sentence reads:
There has not been a single case in which a vote has gone in favour of acceptance of the employer's latest offer.

An Hon. Member: He did not read that.

Mr. Orme: He was extremely selective.

The Solicitor-General: The latest offer ballot vote referred to in the last sentence is something which only takes place where a settlement has not taken place. In other words, in the 16 cases where there was a resumption of work the ballot might not arise. The last offer ballot is quite distinct from the balloting proposals which we propose in later Clauses in this Bill. It has nothing to do with our proposals. What the hon. Member has said does not invalidate the point that the cooling-off period is designed to bring about the deferment of a strike.

Mr. Orme: When we had the Ministry of Labour, which acted in a really conciliatory manner, settlements could be reached without the threat or imposition of a cooling-off period. That is the point we are making. In British industrial relations it will not resolve anything.
Paragraph 423 of the Donovan Report is very interesting. Incidentally, as I pointed out to the Solicitor-General, Mr. Andrew Shonfield did not dissent from this whole group of paragraphs. Paragraph 423 says:
The record under the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States has been worse than the record in our country.
Worse than the record in our country.
We have been singularly free from strikes in recent years which would have come within the scope of a 'Taft-Hartley' kind of procedure.
If we bring this rigidity into industrial relations and enforce a cooling-off period we shall find that the workers will just sit back and wait. The lesson from the United States is that very little happens

during the 90 days. Everyone waits for the end of the 90 days, and the employers and workers prepare for the stoppage.

Mr. Tom King: How can the hon. Gentleman say that very little happens, when 16 disputes were settled?

Mr. Orme: We are talking about conciliation, and my point is that a cooling-off period is not necessary for conciliation. In the motor car industry and the steel industry in the United States the 90 days comes to an end and there is a strike of indefinite length. If this happened in Britain, it would be injurious to the economy, the strike would be difficult to settle and industrial relations would be worsened. The British economy cannot withstand such a strike as the American economy can.
I have gone through the small type of the other Clauses and there are many things as dangerous as this, but this is one of the showpieces. Despite the fig leaf used by the Solicitor-General in trying to explain the Bill, he has not come anywhere near convincing the Committee that such a form of statutory control is necessary. We and the T.U.C. do not need such a cooling-off period. The courts, the policing, the arrest of individuals—all these are alien to British industrial life, and we want no part of it.

Mrs. Castle: The Solicitor-General has given us some astonishing explanations of the provisions of the Bill. I was never more taken aback than when he told us that Clause 124 and the proposal for a cooling-off period
finds its origin in the Andrew Shonfield memorandum in the Donovan Report.
I had always thought it found its origin in "Fair Deal at Work", which was based on pre-Donovan evidence. The Solicitor-General has shown great ingenuity throughout our long debates in always getting Donovan out of the argument like a rabbit out of a hat. When Donovan rejects the proposition, with great resourcefulness he says that it has its roots in Shonfield.
Since the Solicitor-General made this comment I have been glancing through my Shonfield, and I find that Andrew Shonfield did not suggest a cooling-off period. He was dealing, as Donovan was dealing, as "In Place of Strife" was


dealing, and as 1 thought the Government were dealing with a British situation and with the special characteristics of Britain's industrial relations problems. To that situation and those problems a cooling-off period on Taft-Hartley lines is an alien irrelevance. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
The Solicitor-General has moved us during the past weeks with his definition of the poison at the heart of British industrial society, the poison of the unofficial strike. That has been his excuse for all the other restrictions in the Bill. Suddenly we are told "Can anybody deny that the British situation demands an American-type cooling-off period?"—and this in Britain where the industrial relations problems are entirely different.
The problem in the United States mostly involves the long and protracted major official strike, whereas the Government say that our problem is the spasmodic, spontaneous, often short-lived unofficial strike.
My hon. Friend for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was right to say that this is one of the Government's gimmicks. There have, in fact, been two major gimmicks in the Government's policy for industrial relations with which they have regaled the British public for many years. One was to make all collective agreements legally enforceable, which was expected to cure everything. It took us a long time to point out the irrelevance and unworkability of that one. The second was the cooling-off period; and now the Government are stuck with it.
I repeat that I do not underestimate the Government's resourcefulness in the matter of industrial relations. When they found that to make collective agreements legally enforceable on a voluntary basis would lead to none of them being legally enforceable, they moved on to more restrictive powers and, indeed, to a new power that was not outlined in "Fair Deal at Work"; namely, the imposition by Government initiative of procedure agreements. Therefore, we find in Clause 124 the ingredients for a far more dangerous proposition than many hon. Gentlemen have yet to realise.
Clause 124 goes very much further than the simple formula of the Taft-Hartley Act, very much further than giving the President the right to find that

a dispute affecting an entire industry or substantial part thereof will imperil the national health or safety. We have the alarming situation that in the United States the procedure of the Taft-Hartley cooling-off period, despite the limited definition under which it is supposed to operate, has been invoked in situations that went far wider than the narrow terms of the law. Yet here in Clause 124 are much wider powers even than Taft-Hartley. We have the words that this procedure can be invoked where there is likely to be a situation
gravely injurious to the national economy",
and with the national economy in the state in which it is increasingly becoming under this Government, I should have thought that opened the door very wide indeed.
I have been waiting in confident anticipation throughout this debate for the hon. and learned Gentleman, finding his back slightly to the wall on this point, in face of the facts and having been bombarded from this side of the Committee, to trundle out "In Place of Strife". I did not wait in vain. The hon. and learned Gentleman, bless his dear heart, did not disappoint me. We have had all the old resources brought in, all the minutiae of the arguments about "In Place of Strife", and it is the biggest revelation of the Government's anxiety about their own measures that they have to go to such lengths to pretend that they are the same as mine.
11.45 p.m.
This evening we had even the remarkable spectacle of the Solicitor-General, introducing a major piece of legislation on which the Government have spent a great deal of thought and initiative, pleading with me to spell out the terms of an interim Bill which I never even introduced to Parliament. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen need not worry. I am delighted to deal with "In Place of Strife", because it is ludicrous to say that we ever produced any provision remotely like the cooling-off period formula in Clause 124. I am delighted to spend a few minutes examining the White Paper, because no document more clearly demonstrates the fundamental difference between the two sides of the Committee, even if we are in the middle of a family dispute.


We would have nothing to do with this tatty bit of Taft-Hartley hangover, second-hand and shop-soiled in the first place, and now presented to us by this Government in an even more ridiculous and more restrictive form. The reason why we would have nothing to do with it was that we were dealing in the White Paper with the characteristics of the British problems as we saw them. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was dealing with them, too. A major characteristic is the short-lived and spontaneous strike.
Of course, in the case of the major, official, constitutional dispute which may drag on for months without settlement, what is often needed is not a cooling-off period but a warming-up period in which the conciliation forces of the Government Department and the imaginativeness and efforts of both sides are brought in to resolve a dispute which may have been fermenting for a long time, where the parties have become entrenched, and where the situation will only be made worse if the dispute is put into cold storage for another 60 days. That is why we rejected the cooling-off period.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot see the difference between this proposal and a conciliation Clause designed to deal with a down-tools strike where there has been no attempt to use negotiation or conciliation machinery, it is because they have never grasped the deeply reactionary philosophy of their own Bill, and so they cannot understand the very different philosophy which has always dominated our approach, whatever disagreements there may have been on this proposal or that.
Of course the White Paper was set in the framework of an entirely different philosophy—the belief that industrial relations are human relations, not legal relations, and that if one tried to put them in a legal straitjacket one would compress the healthy growth of those human relations which must solve their own problems and differences by the development of mutual understanding and compromise, however difficult.

Mr. Eadie: Would not my right hon. Friend think it pertinent, since the Secretary of State has joined us, to mention that under the American system there are now 24,400 postal unions? How

would we negotiate with 24,400 postal unions in our present situation?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for contributing a piece of information for the benefit of the Secretary of State. But there is another fundamental difference between our philosophy and that of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is that we believe—this dominates and has always dominated our policy—that the prime responsibility for good industrial relations lies with management and that the more one deals with one's problems by putting a clamp on one of the parties, the unions, the more one puts a premium on bad management.
One of the remarkable characteristics of the Bill and our debate on it is that it nowhere makes a centrepoint of responsibility for good industrial relations the manager, the man who is there and who is paid and trained to do the job of creating those good relations. But we have done it: we always did it. That is why we on this side have always refused to condemn all unofficial strikes—

Sir John Rodgers: rose—

Mrs. Castle: No, I have not many minutes before the guillotine falls, and I want to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite what they do not want to know—what has always impregnated our philosophy. We have always refused to condemn all unofficial strikes. When this Government come along with a Bill with two major prongs—first, an elaborate legal framework for suppressing all unofficial strikes, and then, as though that was not enough, a great armoury of powers in Clause 124 for the cooling-off period about any type of official strike—we say to them, "What are you leaving in the way of responsibility upon management. —a cooling-off period to delay the necessity for management to retrieve the solution in a major strike, placing sanctions on unofficial strikes so that it can always be said that the troubles are due to the unions, that if only the unions can be contained the trouble will go away?"
We say that British employers are not such saints that we can declare that they are never responsible. If we give these total powers of repression for which the Government are asking we are de facto saying that British management is never


responsible for bad industrial situations leading to the unofficial strike.
That is why we refuse to tie the hands of the shop stewards in dealing with a shop floor situation, and that is why in "In Place of Strife" we examined the right hon. Gentleman's propositions in this Bill and rejected them one by one. We rejected in terms his central proposition that immunity from actions for inducement to commit a breach of contract of employment should be limited to registered trade unions.
One of our main reasons was that to put unofficial strike leaders at risk would mean that they could be penalised even if the strike was justified through bad management. We rejected the suggestion that the Government or some independent agency should take from employers the responsibility for negotiating good procedure agreements by imposing them by law. We rejected the idea that unions should be de-registered if they did not discipline their members who took unofficial action. All these things are in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill and they were all rejected by us because our approach is very different.
We stressed time and again that we should do nothing by legislation to impede a voluntary reform of procedures by taking the employers' responsibility from them. Time and again in this Bill hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken from management its responsibility to negotiate, consult, persuade, to win over and, therefore, to help voluntary reform. We agree that where a strike, official or unofficial, takes place after the exhaustion of agreed procedures, it would be intolerable to interfere with the strike since employees may have no other way of remedying a legitimate grievance.
What hon. Gentlemen opposite will not realise and face, because they do not want to, is that the whole of our proposition is based on that difference of approach, the difference of belief as to where the major responsibility lies, the belief that by spreading legal restrictions of this far-reaching kind what is being done is relieving management of its job. We have also said that the Government should be prepared to take responsibility for their actions and to answer directly in the House of Commons and not to

hide, as this Government have hidden, behind the procedures of a Clause.
When we acted as a Government we dared to answer to Parliament. We say that total discretion means total answerability. The discretion in this Clause is divided between the Secretary of State on the one hand and the courts of law on the other. This division enables the Government to get away from their answerability, and this is the purpose of this division of responsibility. The Government are abusing the pretence of legal sanctions—

It being Twelve o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th and 27th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 299, Noes 250.

Division No. 198]
AYES
[8.22 p.m


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Gray, Hamish


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, F. V.
Green, Alan


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Grieve, Percy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Astor, John
Critchley, Julian
Grylls, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Crouch, David
Gummer, Selwyn


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Gurden, Harold


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Curran, Charles
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Botsford, Brian
Dean, Paul
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bell, Ronald
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dixon, Piers
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Haselhurst, Alan


Benyon, W.
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Berry, Hn. Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Havers, Michael


Biffen, John
Dykes, Hugh
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Hay, John


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Boscawen, R. T.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Heseltine, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Emery, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terence L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Farr, John
Hiley, Joseph


Braine, Bernard
Fell, Anthony
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bray, Ronald
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


BrewiS, John
Fidler, Michael
Holland, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatten
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Holt, Miss Mary


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hooson, Emlyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Fortescue, Tim
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Buck, Antony
Fowler, Norman
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fox, Marcus
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
James, David


Channon, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Chapman, Sydney
Gibson-Watt, David
Jessel, Toby


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Churchill, W. S.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Jopling, Michael.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhart, Philip
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Cockeram, Eric
Gorst, John
Kilfedder, James


Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Coombs, Derek
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cooper, A. E.






Kinsey, J. R.
Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirk, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Steel, David


Kitson, Timothy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Osborn, John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Knox, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lambton, Antony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Sutcliffe, John


Le Merchant, Spencer
Pardoe, John
Tapsell, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Taytor,Edward Mr.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


MacArthur, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McCrindle, R. A.
Pounder, Rafton
Tebbit, Norman


McLaren, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McMaster, Stanley
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Raison, Timothy
Tilney, John


Madden, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Madel, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trew, Peter


Maginnis, John E.
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marten, Neil
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Waddington, David


Mawby, Ray
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Wall, Patrick


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rost, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Moate, Roger
Russell, Sir Ronald
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Molyneaux, James
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Money, Ernie
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wiggin, Jerry


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Monro, Hector
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wolrige-Gorden, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Worsley, Marcus


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Simeons, Charles
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hn. George


Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.



Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Soref, Harold
Mr. Keith Speed and


Neave, Airey
Spence, John
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Eadie, Alex


Albu, Austen
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Allen, Scholefield
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, Tom


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Fred


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)


Barnes, Michael
Cronin, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Barnett, Joel
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Beaney, Alan
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cunningham, C. (Islington, S.W.)
Foley, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Forrester, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Freeson, Reginald


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bradley, Tom
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Deakins, Eric
Gilbert, Dr. John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Delargy, H. J.
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch&amp;F'bury)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Golding, John


Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James
Gourlay, Harry


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Carmichael, Neil
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunn, James A.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack








Hardy, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hattersley, Roy
Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.


Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hilton, W. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Horam, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short, Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marks, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Marquand, David
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Small, William


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Mayhew, Christopher
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Hunter, Adam
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Mendelson, John
Stallard, A. W.


Janner, Greville
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Molloy, William
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Taverne, Dick


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Murray, Ronald King
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ogden, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tinn, James


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
O'Malley, Brian
Tomney, Frank


Judd, Frank
Oram, Bert
Torney, Tom


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Urwin, T. W.


Kerr, Russell
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Varley, Eric G.


Kinnoch, Neil
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Edwin


Lambie, David
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Latham, Arthur
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wallace, George


Lawson, George
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Weitzman, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pendry, Tom
Wellbeloved, James


Leonard, Dick
Pentland, Norman
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, Ernest G.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prescott, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McBride, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)



McCartney, Hugh
Rhodes, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McElhone, Frank
Richard, Ivor
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. William Hamling.

[For Division List 199 see col. 747]

Clause 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock, including the Questions on an Amendment and on a Motion for a new Clause moved by a Member of the Government.

Clause 125

ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 124

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 294, Noes 248.

[For Division List 200 see col. 751]

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WHERE ORDER MADE UNDER S. 125

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 246.

[For Division List 201 see col. 755]

Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR ORDER FOR BALLOT RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 245.

[For Division List 202 see col. 761]

Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 128

ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 127

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 242.

[For Division List 203 see col. 765]

Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129

PROVISIONS PENDING RESULT OF BALLOT ORDERED UNDER S. 128

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 241.

[For Division List 204 see col. 769]

Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 130 to 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137

CLAIMS UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1959, S. 8

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 242.

[For Division List 205 see col. 773]

Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138

RECOVERY OF SUMS AWARDED IN PRO CEEDINGS INVOLVING TRADE UNION OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION.

Amendment made: No. 853, in page 95, line 15, at end insert:

(3) Except as provided by subsection (1) of this section, any judgment, order or award which is made against a trade union or an employers' association in any proceedings (whether brought by virtue of this Act or otherwise) shall be enforceable against any property belonging to, or held in trust for, the trade union or employers' association.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNREGISTERED ORGANISATIONS

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 236.

[For Division List 206 see col. 779]

Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 140 to 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143

RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRACTING OUT

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 279, Noes 235.

[For Division List 207 see col. 783]

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 144 to 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 148

INTERPRETATION

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It has been represented to me that there has been a fault in the timing in the Division. I propose to call the Division again.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 233.

[For Division List 208 see col. 787]

Clause 148 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 149

AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 235.

[For Division List 209 see col. 791]

Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 150

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 233.

[For Division List 210 see col. 796]

Clause 150 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause No. 18

COMPLAINT OF BREACH OF DUTY UNDER S. 53

(1) Any person employed in an undertaking may present to an industrial tribunal a complaint against the employer who is the owner of the undertaking that—

(a) under section 53 of this Act it was the duty of the employer to issue to him a statement relating to a period specified in the complaint and containing the information required in acordance with regulations made under that section, and
(b) the employer has not fulfilled that duty as required by that section.

(2) If, on such a complaint, the industrial tribunal finds that the grounds of the complaint are well-founded, the tribunal may, if it considers that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order determining the rights of the person who presented the complaint and of the employer in relation to the matters to which the complaint relates.
(3) Where an industrial tribunal makes an order under this section, the tribunal may direct that, in relation to the period specified in the complaint, the time limited by section 53(2) of this Act shall be extended for such further period as may be specified in the order; and in the next following subsection 'the time allowed by the tribunal' means the time so limited together with any further period specified in the order.
(4) If a person whose rights have been determined by an order made by an industrial tribunal under this section claims that, notwithstanding, the order, the employer has not, within the time allowed by the tribunal, issued

to him a statement in accordance with his rights as so authorised, he may present a complaint to that effect to the Industrial Court.
(5) On a complaint presented under subsection (4) of this section the Industrial Court may, if it finds that the grounds of the complaint are well-founded and considers that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order directing the employer, before the end of such period as may be specified in the order of the Court, to issue to the complainant a statement containing such information as the Court considers appropriate, having regard to the rights determined by the order of the industrial tribunal.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

Schedule I agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHIEF REGISTRAR AND ASSISTANT REGIS TRARS, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELA TIONS COURT AND COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

Question put, That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 234.

[For Division List 211 see col. 802]

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

REQUIREMENTS AS TO RULES OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIA TIONS.

Question proposed, That this be the Third Schedule to the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 279, Noes 233.

[For Division List 212 see col. 806]

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT, 1959

Question put, That this be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee Divided: Ayes 279, Noes 231.

[For Division List 213 see col. 810]

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Question put, That this Schedule be the Eighth Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 232.

[For Division List 214 see col. 814]

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order [25th January].

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered this day, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Orders of the Day — YORKSHIRE COALFIELD AREA (UNEMPLOYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

3.10 a.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: We are now in the eighteenth hour of my working day. This is my third shift, after having started out at 9 o'clock yesterday morning. We are on no overtime pay and if any body of workers ought to be recognised in industrial relations it is Members of Parliament. We need our own trade union.
Nationally we have now reached the frightening, and to many people soul-destroying, unemployment figure of 721,000. Worse still, it is a trend that is moving upwards and shows no sign of levelling out. If there is no distinct change in Government policy we might have 1 million unemployed by the end of the year. Because the increase innemployment is outstripping the Government's efforts to curb inflation, we must all recognise that unemployment is now becoming an urgent economic and social problem. Only specific measures by the Government can stop this trend escalating to a pitch that will bring back the grim memories of the 1930s.
The nation is stagnant; growth is not forthcoming; investment is down and manpower is being wasted. What is more, misery among families is on the increase. For all this to change, there will have to be an alteration in this deliberate policy which is encouraging a spiral of price increases and which is sparking off high wage demands. Understandably, the unions want a safeguard against the rate of inflation, and consequently are requesting a built-in buffer against a quick wage erosion.
If there is one factor that is the cause of the present inflation more than any other, it is runaway prices—and not until this is curbed shall we get a slow down in the unemployment figures. That is where the Government will have to begin before unions will co-operate in a sensible anti-inflation policy wherein growth can be planned and industry can have faith to invest, and then employment will pick up.

This morning I am particularly concerned with the serious levels of unemployment in Barnsley and the coal zone of Yorkshire. Last month we had 5·3 per cent. unemployment in the Barnsley area, and the figures for February show a rise to 5·6 per cent.—an increase of 300 people out of work, bringing the total up to 3,929.

In the Yorkshire and Humberside region there was also an increase in the last month and there are now 69,635 unemployed there. The Barnsley percentage is well over the national average: 5·6 per cent. against a national average of 3·1 per cent. There is a need for some fresh and urgent initiative by the Government to encourage present employers to expand and new employers and industries to come into the district.

Four problems which cause me concern. First, the industrial development certificate policy is not working, in spite of the fact that we now have intermediate area status with extra incentives for industrialists to come to our town. On 1st February the Under-Secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry revealed to me that 22 I.D.Cs. were granted in 1969, but the number dropped to 18 in 1970. The estimated additional employment for males in 1969 from 22 I.D.Cs. was 370, and from the 18 I.D.Cs. granted in 1970 it was 130. That meant some 40 I.D.Cs. were employing only 500 men—approximately 12 men each. There is not much hope in this development. On this basis I.D.C. policy is too slow in operation and is not even scratching the surface of the problem.

Secondly, every pit has now closed in the Barnsley borough. Nearly 1,000 ex-miners are unemployed, and even though the Labour Government alleviated the hardship of miners over 55 years of age with a special financial benefit which gave them up to 90 per cent. of their previous take-home pay for three years, this scheme is coming to an end for many of the men. Hence, there is a new problem involving hundreds of ex-miners between 58 and 65 having to resign themselves to dole queues for the rest of their lives, existing on social security benefits, with no hope, no work. They are experienced, versatile. reliable men, and they are

doomed to the labour scrap heap. In the coal zone of Yorkshire, already 1,400 are affected in this way, and there are 3,729 miners of all age groups who are unemployed in the coal zone of the county as well.

Thirdly, in a survey of the future of the Yorkshire coalfield, the National Coal Board has revealed that, because of the exhaustion of reserves alone—by which is meant completely worked out seams; it has nothing to do with pits which may close because they are uneconomic or because of geological difficulties—29 pits will close in the next 10 years, affecting at least another 17,000 men.

The Yorkshire coalfield is necessary. Of that, there is no doubt. It has a future beyond the year 2000, especially feeding the big coal-fired power stations in and around the county area. But the problem of closures through exhaustion and its additional appalling effects upon employment having been seen, planning for alternative industrial employment should now begin.

The fourth problem is the working of the new Industrial Training Scheme, which was specially designed to train unemployed workers over 45 years of age. So far, it has proved useless. Within the climate of inflation, employers fear high wages. Therefore, they are finding means of shedding labour rather than setting men on. In my area, not one firm so far has taken in one man under the scheme, in spite of the incentive of £10 per man per week while he is being trained.

To sum up, the problems are escalating unemployment, the fact that the I.D.C. policy is virtually useless in overcoming it, the special problem of older unemployed mineworkers and the fact that the Industrial Training Act is just not working, and the looming spectre of 29 pit closures by 1980. In view of all this, I propose that the Government should treat the present and future threat of increased unemployment in Barnsley and the coal zone of Yorkshire as a matter requiring urgent attention.

First, they should declare the whole zone as one of development status. The Minister must realise that, having granted special development area status to parts of the North-East, Yorkshire is likely to be by-passed because of these additional


incentives. Indeed, it is likely to kill or at least neutralise the intermediate status that we acquired last year.

Secondly, we should consider new capital projects in the coal mining industry of Yorkshire. Kellingley colliery is an example. We need a large mine to produce between 1½ and 2 million tons per year with high productivity and relatively cheap power station coal. What about a new super-mine to tap the 7 ft. thick coal seam that runs from Kellingley through to the coastline: a new investment in coal, a new investment in the county. and 1,000 men's jobs?

Thirdly, the Government and the Coal Board might consider the reopening of Thorne colliery. There, £3 million of investment would be required for new winding gear and an underground transport system. This, too, would result in another 750 to 1,000 jobs. Alternatively, because both cannot be done, especially because Thorne colliery reserves are under it, the Government might consider Thorne waste as a site for a new major airport to serve the county and relieve pressure on others in the North of England. Certainly this would boost employment and revitalise the region.

Fourthly, the Government should consider encouraging a new growth labour-intensive industry to come to the coal zone of Yorkshire. A car manufacturing plant or a bus assembly plant, even the projected Ford engine factory, would be welcome in the Yorkshire county.

What about a new power station to follow Drax 2? We have the water, the fuel and the manpower. There would be 2,500 jobs during construction and 750 thereafter. If necessary, a new power station could be tied to the new super-mine and if there were a deliberate investment decision by the Government, the National Coal Board and the C.E.G.B. to do this, it could rejuvenate the coal zone and quickly make an impact on the serious level of unemployment.

In the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Strategy Report, prepared by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, reference is made to the serious situation in the coalfield—Doncaster, Hemsworth, South Kirby, Dearne Valley and the Five Towns. My hon. Friends the Members for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) and Pon-

tefract (Mr. Harper) are present tonight because of the serious question of unemployment in their areas.

There is a special reference to Barnsley in paragraph 135:
A reduction in labour demand is expected as a result of a continuing decline of employment in coalmining and a substantial shortage of male jobs is likely. In our report 'Employment Prospects in the Yorkshire Coalmining Areas', we recognised that the situation in Barnsley was particularly urgent.
It is still urgent and it is getting worse.

There is too much migration of young adults, professional workers and non-manual workers. Prospects for school-leavers are depressing. The elderly unemployed coal miner is destined to tread the streets hopelessly searching for work until ultimately he loses his pride and his soul. The after-effects of being dependent on a mono-economy in the area for so long are now hurting. New industries are badly needed and only by Government decree are these awful trends to be arrested.

Giving us full development status would help, and the extra financial incentives might start an inflow of industry. We have the sites and the manpower. Now it has become so desperate that we do not want just sympathy and hope from the Minister tonight—we want direct action.

3.22 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am glad to have the opportunity, even at this late hour, to discuss the problems of employment in Barnsley and the Yorkshire coalfield. I agree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that the unemployment there is far too high. I hope that he will accept that I and my colleagues view this with very great concern, but in part what he said was a damning indictment of the economic policies of the previous Government for the last three years, and in part a recognition of the inevitable changes and restructuring of traditional industries.

I do not accept that the I.D.C. policy is not working. I regard this as an essential weapon of regional policy and I will administer it in that way. But one must recognise that, if there is a shortage of mobile industry, as there is at the moment, I.D.C.s will simply not


be applied for. However, I would emphasise to the Yorkshire intermediate area that I.D.C.s will be made freely available if industry is found to go there.

Also, I do not entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about training. This is a major problem, which the Government view with concern. The plight of the elderly miner who is redundant is one which I consider with great anxiety, but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, on 4th November, 1970—I refer him to column 383 of HANSARD—the Secretary of State for Employment announced in answer to a Question that the Government intended to give a new emphasis to training to help the unemployed, and he set out four important developments, starting from 1st January, 1971. I will not read them out now, but they indicate a determination on the part of the Government to tackle this seriously. I very much hope that this will have the necessary effect of speeding up this important and difficult retraining work.

Dealing with Thorne airport, it is a matter primarily for local interests to decide in the first instance whether detailed studies into the feasibility of developing a major airport at Thorne-Goole are required. The Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, which considered this question in the light of the refusal of planning permission for the extension of Leeds-Bradford Airport, concluded that, since there was no evidence that Manchester Airport would reach saturation before the 1980s, there was no urgent need to study alternative sites for airports east of the Pennines. It also considered that detailed studies, which would be required before the heavy capital expenditure involved in constructing a major airport could be incurred, would be essentially a matter in the first instance for the local planning authorities concerned.

I emphasise that the viability of a new major airport on the Thorne-Goole site would depend on there being an adequate demand for air services. This is absolutely essential. It is only right that I should give the House the Government's view in this respect. which is that, while

there is no reason why local interests should not pursue this matter as they think fit, we largely take the view of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council that the scheme is essentially a long-term one.

As to the possibility of it being developed into an intercontinental airport of some sort as an alternative to London, this is a matter upon which I should prefer not to pass judgment since we will be debating the Roskill Commission's Report next week.

I turn now to the coal industry, the restructuring of which is one of the major reasons for the difficulties cited by the right hon. Gentleman. Coal has a vital part to play in meeting the energy requirements of Great Britain. In common with other coal producing areas the Yorkshire coalfield has had to face major problems in the restructuring of this industry and the manpower consequences of modernisation and re-equipment. Nevertheless, the Yorkshire coalfield, providing that it is efficient and competitive, has a good future before it. The National Coal Board has, no doubt, been considering the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised about the development of coal in the region. This is a part of Britain in which coal has a future, provided it is efficiently and economically produced.

I was interested to observe that the Board was engaging in recruiting campaigns, which is an encouraging sign. However there is a need for new industry. Industry is needed which can utilise the innate adaptability and capacity for hard work which has always been characteristic of this area. There are no quick solutions. It would be wrong to say that the solution could be found overnight. Before new industry can begin to flow in on any scale we must strengthen the weakness in the economy which was our legacy from the previous Administration. We must do this so that industry can make confident plans for the future.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the present intermediate area should be designated a development area. I remind him that it is less than a year—it was on 5th March, 1970—that she area


was designated an intermediate area. It is, therefore, early days to judge how it is working out in its present status.

The recent announcement of increased assistance to certain areas of the country which was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stems from a detailed examination of the situations and prospects of all areas. The unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from this review was that the policies adopted in recent years has failed to measure up to the worsening problems of some of the older industrial conurbations in the development areas.

Exhibiting over the past two or three years disturbingly high and persistent levels of unemployment, their needs are such that they must be given first priority for the limited supply of mobile industry. For this reason we came to the conclusion that, having been granted intermediate status only a year ago, the right hon. Gentleman's area could not be upgraded. Clearly, the future pattern of assisted areas must reflect changes in the situation in particular areas. However, it is not our intention to make frequent changes, since industry must be given a stable framework on which to base its decisions.

Advance factories have been authorised for Barnsley, Doncaster, Hemsworth and Mexborough at a cost of about £500,000. Sites have been chosen, construction is expected to begin in March and the factories should be ready by about the end of the year. About 300 jobs are expected to be provided intitially in total, but each factory will be capable of expansion to two or three times its original size. It would not be sensible to authorise the construction of further advance factories until it is seen whether the first batch attracts occupiers. However, this may encourage private developers to acquire sites.

I beg hon. Gentleman opposite not to paint a picture of an area in decline and despair. This is an area of great

potential and one which has very much to offer to incoming industrialists. The benefits of being an intermediate area have been clearly set out and the right hon. Gentleman has done something to advertise them. I will be doing everything I possibly can to encourage industry to go to the assisted areas, which of course include this area, and my Department will draw the advantages, which are considerable, of Barnsley and Yorkshire to the attention of industrialists. I repeat that no service is done to the people who live in this area to paint a black and miserable picture.

I hope, too, that firms which are already in the area will take into account the substantial Government assistance which can support their expansion plans. This area has good access to other important centres of industry and lies along major rail and motorway routes, being convenient for the Ml and M62. My Department will continue to draw the resources of the area to the attention of appropriate firms on every possible occasion.

Throughout the intermediate areas, industrial development certificates are, in general, freely available for new factory building and extensions. I hope that, against this background, all who have the welfare of the area at heart—and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I and my colleagues certainly have—will continue their efforts to ensure that its very real advantages are given the publicity they deserve.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this problem affecting his constituency and I ask all concerned not to be downhearted but to have confidence in the future and to do everything possible, as I shall, to let the industrial world and potential developers know the great advantages of going to Barnsley and Yorkshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Four o'clock a.m.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Division No. 199.]
AYES
[12 m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Lane, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer


Astor, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fidler, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Awdry, Daniel
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Longden, Gilbert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Loveridge, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, R. A.


Batsford, Brian
Fowler, Norman
McLaren, Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bell, Ronald
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford&amp;Stone)
McMaster, Stanley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Benyon, W.
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Madel, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol


Boscawen, Robert
Gorst, John
Maude, Angus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brewis, John
Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Brocktebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Malyneaux, James


Bryan, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Money, Ernie


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Havers, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Channon, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Chichester-Clarke, R.
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hiley, Joseph
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Osborn, John


Clegg, Walter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cooke, Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Coombs, Derek
Hooson, Emlyn
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Hornby, Richard
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Cordle, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


costain, A. P.
Howell, Raph (Norfolk, N.)
Pounder, Rafton


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Curran, Charles
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Dean, Paul
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dixon, Piers
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kilfedder, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Drayson, G. B.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


du cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dykes, Hugh
kinsey, J. R
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffney


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinght, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, R. D. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Lambton, Antony








Rost, Peter
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walker, David (Clitheroe)


Royle, Anthony
Sutcliffe, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walters, Dennis


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Ward, Dame Irene


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Warren, Kenneth


Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Temple, John M.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Simeons, Charles
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Soref, Harold
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Speed, Keith
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Spence, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Stainton, Keith
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stanbrook, Ivor
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Steel, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.



Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Jasper More and


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Stokes, John
Waddington, David





NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
John, Brynmor


Albu, Austen
Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkinson, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Ellis, Tom
Judd, Frank


Beaney, Alan
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Evans, Fred
Kelley, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kerr, Russell


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamond, James


Booth, Albert
Foley, Maurice
Latham, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foot, Michael
Lawson, George


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Leonard, Dick


Brown,Ronald(Shoreditch&amp;Finsbury)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lipton, Marcus


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Garratt, W. E.
Lomas, Kenneth


Campbell, I. (Dunbartortshire, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Loughlin, Charles


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McBride, Neil


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Michael(Bristol, S.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McGuire, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
Mackintosh, John p.


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Maclennan, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hardy, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cronin, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
MacPherson, Malcolm


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Hilton, W. S.
Marquand, David


Darling, Re. Hn. George
Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davidson, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Delargy, H. J.
Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William


Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArihur(Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dempsey, James
Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dormand, J. D.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland



Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick







Murray, Ronald King
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Ogden, Eric
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tinn, James


O'Halloran, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tomney, Frank


O'Malley, Brian
Roper, John
Torney, Tom


Oram, Bert
Rose, Paul
Tuck, Raphael


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Urwin, T. W.


Oswald, Thomas
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Varley, Eric G.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin


Paget, R. T.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wallace, George


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sillars, James
Watkins, David


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silverman, Julius
Weitzman, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip


Perry, Ernest G.
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wiley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Probert, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Swain, Thomas



Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taverne, Dick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Richard, Ivor
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Mr.Joseph Harper and


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




Division No. 200.]
AYES
[12.12 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cockeram, Eric
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooke, Robert
Gray, Hamish


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Coombs, Derek
Green, Alan


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cooper, A. E.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Astor, John
Cordle, John
Grylis, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, Selwyn


Awdry, Daniel
Costain, A. P.
Garden, Harold


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Critchley, Julian
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Lord
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Batsford, Brian
Curran, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bell, Ronald
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Haselhurst, Alan


Benyon, W.
Dean, Paul
Hastings, Stephen


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Havers, Michael


Biffen, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Dixon, Piers
Hayhoe, Barney


Blaker, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heseltine, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks, Robert


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Higgins, Terence L.


Boscawen, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hiley, Joseph


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Sir John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bowden, Andrew
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Braine, Bernard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Holt, Miss Mary


Bray, Ronald
Emery, Peter
Hornby, Richard


Brewis, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Farr, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fell, Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fidler, Michael
Hunt, John


Bryan, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet
James, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fortescue, Tim
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Burden, F. A.
Fowler, Norman
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jopling, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gardner, Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Channon, Paul
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kilfedder, James


Chlchester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Churchill, W. S.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhart, Philip
Kinsey, J. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorst, John
Kirk, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Gower, Raymond
Kitson, Timothy







Knight, Mrs. Jill
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Lambton, Antony
Osborn, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lane, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stokes, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sutcliffe, John


Le Merchant, Spencer
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


MacArthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton
Tebbit, Norman


McCrindle, R. A.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


McLaren, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McMaster, Stanley
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tilney, John


Maddan, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Madel, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trew, Peter


Maginnis, John E.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
Waddington, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Severoaks)
Walters, Dennis


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Moate, Roger
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Molyneaux, James
St. John-Stevas, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Money, Ernie
Scott, Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Wilkinson, John


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Younger, Hon. George


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Soref, Harold



Neave, Airey
Spence, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith
Mr.Victor Goodhew and


Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, lvor
Mr. Keith Speed.


Nott, John






NOES


Abse, Leo
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunn, James A.


Albu, Austen
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dunnett, Jack


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Allen, Scholefield
Coleman, Donald
Edelman, Maurice


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ellis, Tom


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
English, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Cronin, John
Evans, Fred


Barnett, Joel
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Beaney, Alan
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bishop, E. S.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Foley, Maurice


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Foot, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Ford, Ben


Booth, Albert
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Forrester, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davie, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Deakins, Eric
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
Delargy, H. J.
Gilbert, Dr. John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Ginsburg, David


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dempsey, James
Golding, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Doig, Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamling, William







Hannan, William (G'gow,Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John


Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John
Rose, Paul B.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hattersley, Roy
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McNamara, J. Kevin
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Heffer, Eric S.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hilton, W. S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Sillars, James


Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Silverman, Julius


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Howell. Denis (Small Heath)
Marquand, David
Small, William


Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, John
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Irvine,Rt.n.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Janner, Greville
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Strang, Gavin


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Swain, Thomas


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Taverne, Dick


John, Brynmor
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Tinn, James


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Halloran, Michael
Torney, Tom


Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oram, Bert
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Varley, Eric G.


Judd, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin


Kaufman, Gerald
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kinnock, Neil
Paget, R. T.
Wallace, George


Kerr, Russell
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Lambie, David
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Weitzman, David


Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie
Wellbeloved, James


Latham, Arthur
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lawson, George
Pendry, Tom
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman
Whitehead, Phillip


Leonard, Dick
Perry, Ernest G.
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prescott, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lomas, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Loughlin, Charles
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McBride, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Mr. William Hamling.


McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)





Division No. 201.]
AYES
[12.24 a.m.


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bowden, Andrew
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Clegg, Walter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Braine, Bernard
Cockeram, Eric


Astor, John
Bray, Ronald
Cooke, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Coombs, Derek


Awdry, Daniel
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper, A. E.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cordle, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick


Balniel, Lord
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.


Batsford, Brian
Bryan, Paul
Critchley, Julian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Crouch, David


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Curran, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Burden, F. A.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Benyon, W.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
d'Aviedor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry,


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Dean, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Channon, Paul
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Blaker, Peter
Chapman, Sydney
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dixon, Piers


Body, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Boscawen, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Drayson, G. B.







du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Eden, Sir John
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Antony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Farr, John
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Slr John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rost, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Royle, Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian
Sharples, Richard


Fox, Marcus
MeCrindle, R. A.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McLaren, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Simeons, Charles


Gardner, Edward
McMaster, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George


Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gilmour, Ian {Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Soref, Harold


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Madel, David
Spence, John


Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.
Stainton, Keith


Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Marten, Neil
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Gower, Raymond
Mather, Carol
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sutcliffe, John


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tapsell, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James
Temple, John M.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Money, Ernie
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tilney, John


Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Trew, Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hicks, Robert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hill, John E. B.(Norfolk, s.)
Normanton, Tom
Waddington, David


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Holt, Miss Mary
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wall, Patrick


Hornby, Richard
Osborn, John
Walters, Dennis


Hornsby, Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Paisley, Mr. Ian
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wilkinson, John


James, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Jessel, Toby
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Younger, Hon. George


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis



Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kilfedder, James
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and



Redmond, Robert
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney


Albu, Austen
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnes, Michael
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
Barnett, Joel
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Beaney, Alan
Booth, Albert


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur







Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'Bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Ft. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Clark, David (Colns Valley)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, James(K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Gaerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roper, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


de Freltas, Rr. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Delargy, H. J.
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Leonard, Dick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Taverne, Dick


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackie, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Torney, Tom


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tuck, Raphael


Foot, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Urwin, T. W.


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins,David


Garrett, W. E.
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Grant, John D. (Islington, East)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Molloy, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and



Ogden, Eric
Mr. James Hamilton.







Division No. 202.]
AYES
[12.35 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fowler, Norman
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Astor, John
Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Balniel, Lord
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bell, Ronald
Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell,Lt-Col.C(Aberdeenshire,W)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Benyon, W.
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Green, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernie


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Blaker, Peter
Gummer, Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Body, Richard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Boscawen, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Airey


Bray, Ronald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brewis, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Bryan, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Buck, Antony
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Burden, F. A.
Hiley, Joseph
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Channon, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Chapman, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smlth,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cockeram, Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Coombs, Derek
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cordle, John
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Critchley, Julian
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crouch, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Curran, Charles
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kitson, Timothy
Royle Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knight, Mrs.Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton,William (Clapham)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Emery, Peter
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


Fidler, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McMaster, Stanley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stokes, John







Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Trew, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Sutcliffe, John
Tugendhat, Christopher
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Tapsell, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilkinson, John


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Waddington, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Tebbit, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Temple, John M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wall, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walters, Dennis



Thomos, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Jasper More and


Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Leonard, Dick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Allen, Scholefield
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Beaney, Alan
Forrester, John
McBride, Neil


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown,Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamling, William
Marquand, David


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cant, R. B.
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Harper, Joseph
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mikardo, Ian


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Cohen, Stanley
Hilton, W. S.
Molloy, William


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn(Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Cronin, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Ronald King


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Janner, Greville
Oram, Bert


Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Dell Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Doig, Peter
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Driberg, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dunn, James A.
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Richard, Ivor


Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)









Roderick,CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wallace, George


Roper, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David


Rose, Paul B.
Strang, Gavin
Weitzman, David


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wellbeloved, James


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Swain, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Taverne, Dick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitlock, William


Sillars, James
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Stallard, A. W.
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. James Hamilton.




Division No. 203.]
AYES
[12.45 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dean, Paul
Hornby, Richard


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dixon, Piers
Howell, David (Guildford)


Astor, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Drayson, G. B.
Hunt, John


Awdry, Daniel
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dykes, Hugh
Iremonger, T. L.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
James, David


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Batsford, Brian
Elliott, R. W. (N'C'tle-upon Tyne,N.)
Jessel, Toby


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bell, Ronald
Farr, John
Jopling, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Benyon, W.
Fidler, Michael
Kershaw, Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kilfedder, James


Biffen, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Blaker, Peter
Fortescue, Tim
Kinsey, J. R.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fowler, Norman
Kirk, Peter


Body, Richard
Fox, Marcus
Kitson, Timothy


Boscawen, Robert
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bossom, Sir Clive
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Knox, David


Bowden, Andrew
Gardner, Edward
Lambton, Antony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gibson-Watt, David
Lane, David


Braine, Bernard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bray, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Brewis, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gorst, John
Longden, Gilbert


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gower, Raymond
Loveridge, John


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
MacArthur, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gray, Hamish
McCrindle, R. A.


Burden, F. A.
Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Grylls, Michael
McMaster, Stanley


Carlisle, Mark
Gummer, Selwyn
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Channon, Paul
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Madel, David


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maginnis, John E.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol


Cockeram, Eric
Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Angus


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray


Coombs, Derek
Havers, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cooper, A. E.
Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cordle, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Cormack, Patrick
Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Crouch, David
Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Crowder, F. P.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Moate, Roger


Curran, Charles
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Molyneaux, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hollard, Philip
Money, Ernie


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holt, Miss Mary
Montgomery, Fergus


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack









More, Jasper
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple, John M.


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mudd, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Murton, Oscar
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony



Neave, Airey
Rost, Peter
Trew, Peter


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Royle, Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Normanton, Tom
Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Nott, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Onslow, Cranley
Scott, Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Osborn, John
Sharples, Richard
Waddington, David


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Simeons, Charles
Wall, Patrick


Paisley, Mr. Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, Dame Irene


Percival, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)
Warren, Kenneth


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Soref, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Pink, R. Bonner
Speed, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pounder, Rafton
Spence, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wilkinson, John


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stokes, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Raison, Timothy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Woodnutt, Mark


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sutcliffe, John
Worsley, Marcus


Redmond, Robert
Tapsell, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Younger, Hn. George.


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)



Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and



Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Victor Goodhew.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hardy, Peter


Allen, Scholefield
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Armstrong, Ernest
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Ashton, Joe
Delargy, H. J.
Hattersley, Roy


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnes, Michael
Doig, Peter
Hilton, W. S.


Barnett, Joel
Dormand, J. D.
Horam, John


Beaney, Alan
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bidwell, Sydney
Driberg, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Bishop, E. S.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Booth, Albert
Eddie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ellis, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foot, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Forrester, John
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Concannon, J. D.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Judd, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E.
Kaufman, Gerald


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kerr, Russell


Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David
Kinnock, Neil


Cronin, John
Golding, John
Lambie, David


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lamond, James


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Latham, Arthur


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lawson, George


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Leadbitter, Ted


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)









Lipton, Marcus
Oram, Bert
Spriggs, Leslie


Lomas, Kenneth
Orme, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Loughlin, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Palmer, Arthur
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Strang, Gavin


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McCartney, Hugh
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Swain, Thomas


McElhone, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Taverne, Dick


McGuire, Michael
Pentland, Norman
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Maclennan, Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, Frank


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Torney, Tom


McNamara, J. Kevin
Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Urwin, T. W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Marquand, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Richard, Ivor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wallace, George


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Watkins, David


Mendelson, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Weitzman, David


Mikardo, Ian
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wellbeloved, James


Millan, Bruce
Roper, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Glasgow, Pellok)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Molloy, William
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Whitlock, William


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sillars, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Murray, Ronald King
Small, William



Ogden, Eric
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


O'Halloran, Michael
Spearing, Nigel
Mr.William Hamling and


O'Malley, Brian

Mr. Kenneth Marks.




Division No. 204.]
AYES
[12.57 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chapman, Sydney
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fortescue, Tim


Astor, John
Churchill, W. S.
Fowler, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fox, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clegg, Walter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cockeram, Eric
Gardner, Edward


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Botsford, Brian
Coombs, Derek
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Benyon, W.
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Biffen, John
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Biggs-Davison, John
Curran, Charles
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Blaker, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gray, Hamish


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, Alan


Body, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Boscawen, Robert
Dean, Paul
Grylls, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gummer, Selwyn


Bowden, Andrew
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gurden, Harold


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dixon, Piers
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Brains, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bray, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brewis, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dykes, Hugh
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Bullus, Sir Eric
Eyre, Reginald
Havers, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fell, Anthony
Heseltine, Michael


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Fidler, Michael
Higgins, Terence L.







Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharples, Richard


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Holland, Philip
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Simeons, Charles


Holt, Miss Mary
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hornby, Richard
Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Money, Ernie
Soref, Harold


Howell, David (Guildford)
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
More, Jasper
Spence, John


Hunt, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stainton, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


James, David
Mudd, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Neave, Airey
Sutcliffe, John


Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Nott, John
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kilfedder, James
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Osborn, John
Tebbit, Norman


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Temple, John M.


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kirk, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kitson, Timothy
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Tilney, John


Knox, David
Percival, Ian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Lambton, Antony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Trew, Peter


Lane, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Tugendhat, Christopher


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Waddington, David


Longden, Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


MacArthur, Ian
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wall, Patrick


McCrindle, R. A.
Redmond, Robert
Walters, Dennis


McLaren, Martin
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


McMaster, Stanley
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


Madel, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maginnis, John E.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Marten, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maude, Angus
Royle, Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Mawby, Ray
Russell, Sir Ronald



Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and



Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cant, R. B.
Deakins, Eric


Allen, Scholefield
Carmichael, Neil
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Delargy, H. J.


Armstrong, Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dempsey, James


Atkinson, Norman
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Doig, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dormand, J. D.


Barnes, Michael
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Coleman, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Beaney, Alan
Concannon, J. D.
Driberg, Tom


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Conlan, Bernard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Dunn, James A.


Bishop, E. S.
Grawshaw, Richard
Dunnett, Jack


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cronin, John
Eadie, Alex


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Edelman, Maurice


Booth, Albert
Grossman, Rr. Hn. Richard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dalyell, Tam
Ellis, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
English, Michael


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davidson, Arthur
Evans, Fred


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fernyhough, E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)







Foley, Maurice
Lawson, George
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Ford, Ben
Leonard, Dick
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Forrester, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Roper, John


Gilbert, Dr. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Golding, John
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sillars, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Skinner, Dennis


Hamling, William
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hardy, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marquand, David
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hattersley, Roy
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Meacher, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Strang, Gavin


Hilton, W. S.
Mendelson, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Horam, John
Mikardo, Ian
Swain, Thomas


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Taverne, Dick


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Molloy, William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Torney, Tom


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tuck, Raphael


Janner, Greville
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Varley, Eric G.


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wallace, George


John, Brynmor
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Bert
Weitzman, David


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orme, Stanloy
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Whitlock, William


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pavitt, Laurie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willian, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Kaufman, Gerald
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kerr, Russell
Perry, Ernest G.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Kinnock, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lamble, David
Prescott, John



Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Alan Fitch and



Probert, Arthur
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Division No. 205.]
AYES
[1.10 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Camphell,.Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Carlisle, Mark


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Body, Richard
Channon, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Boscawen, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Astor, John
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Bowden, Andrew
Chichester-Clark, R.


Awdry, Daniel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Braine, Bernard
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bray, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Balniel, Lord
Brewis, John
Cockeram, Eric



Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooke, Robert


Beamish, Cot, Sir Tufton
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Coombs, Derek


Bell, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooper, A. E.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cordle, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bryan, Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Critchley, Julian


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Crowder, F. P.







Curran, Charles
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, MaJ.-Gen. Jack
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dean, Paul
Kilfedder, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dixon, Piers
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lambton, Antony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fidler, Michael
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacArthur, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, R. A.
Simeons, Charles


Fowler, Norman
McLaren, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Soref, Harold


Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Spence, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maginnis, John E.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gorst, John
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, John


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshre,W)
Temple, John M.


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Money, Ernie
Tilney, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hannam, John (Exeter)
More, Jasper
Trew, Peter


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Waddington, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Ciitheroe)


Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom
Wall, Patrick


Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Warren, Kenneth


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Graham (Crosby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hornhy, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodnutt, Mark


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Younger, Hon. George


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Armstrong, Ernest
Barnes, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Joel


Alien, Scholefield
Atkinson, Norman
Beaney, Alan


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)







Bidwell, Sydney
Hannon, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
O'Halloran, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oram, Bert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire,W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Garonwy(Caernarvon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C.)
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Small, William


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, George
Spearing, Nigel


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Leonard, Dick
Stallard, A. W.


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn, Michael (Fulham)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Dribeg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swain, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, Fred
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, David


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Garrett, W. E.
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Golding, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grant, George (MOrpeth)
Molloy, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Kenneth Marks.







Division No. 206.]
AYES
[1.21 a.m.



Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gardner, Edward
Mather, Carol


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus


Astor, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray


Atkins, Humphrey
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Awdry, Daniel
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Batsford, Brian
Gorst, John
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Green, Alan
Money, Ernie


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper


Biffen, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar


Boscawen, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Airey


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Bray, Ronald
Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Burden, F. A.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hunt, John
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmond, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees, Peter (Dover)



Coombs, Derek
Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Crouch, David
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Curran, Charles
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinsey, J. R.
Rost, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Royle, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambton, Antony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dixon, Piers
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford_Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Simeon, Charles


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Farr, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fidler, Michael
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stokes, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Sutcliffe, John


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Fowler, Norman
Martel, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fox, Marcus
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)







Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wilkinson, John


Tebbit, Norman
Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walters, Dennis
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tilney, John
Ward, Dame Irene
Younger, Hon. George


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Warren, Kenneth



Trew, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tugendhat, Christopher
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Turton, Rt, Hn. R. H.
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Keith Speed.


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William





NOES


Albu, Austen
Fetcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnes, Michael
Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert


Barnett, Joel
Garrett, W. E.
McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Beaney, Alan
Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bidwell, Sydney
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bishop, E. S.
Golding, John
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Meacher, Michael


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milian, Bruce


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchan, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hilton, W. S.
Murray, Ronald King


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Horam, John
Ogden, Eric


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
Oram, Bert


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Cronin, John
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger,Mrs,Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Demand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Nell
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Eadle, Alex
Lawson, George
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)



Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)








Spearing, Nigel
Tomney, Frank
Whitehead, Phillip


Spriggs, Leslie
Torney, Tom
Whitlock,William


Stallard, A. W.
Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, David



Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Tinn, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)





Division No. 207.]
AYES
[1.32 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Drayson, G. B.
Jessel, Toby


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Michael


Astor, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Emery, Peter
Kilfedder, James


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Batsford, Brian
Fell, Anthony
Kinsey, J. R.


Beamish, Cot. Sir Tufton
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Fidler, Michael
Kitson, Timothy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bennett,Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knox, David


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lambton, Antony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Biffen, John
Fowler, Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus
Legge-Bourke,Sir Harry


Blaker, Peter
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Body, Richard
Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Boscawen, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Loveridge, John


Bowden, Andrew
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacArthur, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Braine, Bernard
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McLaren, Martin


Bray, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brewis, John
Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gray, Hamish
Maddan, Martin


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
Madel, David


Buck, Antony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maginnis, John E.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Grylis, Michael
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Burden, F. A.
Gummer, Selwyn
Marten, Neil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gurden, Harold
Mather, Carol


Channon, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maude, Angus


Chapman, Sydney
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cooke, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger


Coombs, Derek
Heseltine, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Cooper, A. E.
Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernie


Cordle, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus


Cormack, Patrick
Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper


Costain, A. P.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Critchley, Julian
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Crouch, David
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Crowder, F. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Mudd, David


Curran, Charles
Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Neave, Airey


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack
Howell, David (Guildford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dean, Paul
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Normanton, Tom


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hunt, John
Nett, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley


Dixon, Piers
Iremonger, T. L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally



James, David
Osborn, John







Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
Trew, Peter


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp;
Whitby) Tugendhat, Christopher


Paisley, Mr. Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Simeons, Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R


Percival, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Waddington, David


Pounder, Rafton
Soref, Harold
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Speed, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, John
Wall, Patrick


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, Dame Irene


Raison, Timothy
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Warren, Kenneth


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Weatherill, Bernard


Redmond, Robert
Stokes, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Sutcliffe, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Woodhouse, Hn, Christopher


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tebbit, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Temple, John M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rost, Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Younger, Hn. George


Royle, Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Scott, Nicholas
Tilney, James
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam


Allen, Scholefield
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Douglas, Dick (Stiriingshire, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Ashton, Joe
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
John, Brynmor


Barnes, Michael
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Beaney, Alan
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, Tom
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
English, Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Evans, Fred
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, E.
Judd, Frank


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Foley, Maurice
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Michael
Lamond, James


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Forrester, John
Lawson, George


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Freeson, Reginald
Leonard, Dick


Carmichael, Neil
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm Northfield)
Garrett, W. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lomas, Kenneth


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Eddie (Brlghtside)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McBride, Nell


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McElhone, Frank


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cronin, John
Harper, Joseph
Mackle, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Hattersley, Roy
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davidson, Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Horam, John
Marks, Kenneth


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn.Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Deakins, Eric
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Ctedwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milian, Bruce







Miller, Dr. M. S.
Probert, Arthur
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardilf,W.)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, Frank


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dner)
Tuck, Raphael


Moyle, Roland
Roper, John
Urwin, T. W.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rose, Paul B.
Varley, Eric G.


Murray, Ronald King
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wainwright, Edwin


Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


O'Halloran, Michael
shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wallace, George


O'Malley, Brian
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Watkins, David


Oram, Bert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Orme, Stanley
Sillars, James
Wellbeloved, James


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Skinner, Dennis
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Palmer, Arthur
Small, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitlock, William


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pentland, Norman
Stewart,Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Perry, Ernest G.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John



Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. William Hamling and


Price, William (Rugby)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. John Golding.


Division No. 208.]
AYES
[1.53 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooke, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Coombs, Derek
Grylls, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cooper, A. E.
Gummer, Selwyn


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cordle, John
Gurden, Harold


Astor, John
Cormack, Patrick
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Atkins, Humphrey
Costain, A. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Awdry, Daniel
Critchley, Julian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Crouch, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Curran, Charles
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Haselhurst, Alan


Beamish, Co[...]. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hastings, Stephen


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Havers, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hawkins, Paul


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hayhoe, Barney


Benyon, W.
Dixon, Piers
Heseltine, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hicks, Robert


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
Higgins, Terence L.


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hiley, Joseph


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Edwards Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Body, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Boscawen, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Holt, Miss Mary


Bossom, Sir Clive
Emery, Peter
Hornby, Richard


Bowden, Andrew
Eyre, Reginald
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricla


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Farr, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Braine, Bernard
Fell, Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bray, Ronald
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Brewis, John
Fidler, Michael
Hunt, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fookes, Miss Janet
James, David


Bruce-Gardyee, J.
Fowler, Norman
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bryan, Paul
Fox, Marcus
Jessel, Toby


Buck, Antony
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jopling, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kilfedder, James


Channon, Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Chapman, Sydney
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
Kinsey, J. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
Kirk, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Gorst, John
Kitson, Timothy


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gower, Raymond
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Knox, David


Clegg, Walter
Gray, Hamish
Lambton, Antony


Cockeram, Eric
Green, Alan
Lane, David




Langford-Holt, Sir John







Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborn, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Longden, Gilbert
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Sutcliffe, John


Loveridge, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Tapsell, Peter


MacArthur, Ian
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McCrindle, R. A.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


McLaren, Martin
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McMaster, Stanley
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tebbit, Norman


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McNair-Wilson,Patrick (New Forest)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Maddan, Martin
Raison, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Madel, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tilney, John


Maginnis, John E.
Redmond, Robert
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trew, Peter


Marten, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mawby, Ray
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale, Julian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Waddington, David


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wall, Patrick


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Rost, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Moate, Roger
Russell, Sir Ronald
Warren, Kenneth


Molyneaux, James
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Money, Ernie
Scott, Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sharples, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wilkinson, John



Mudd, David
Simeons, Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Worsley, Marcus


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Soref, Harold
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Nott, John
Spence, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Onslow Cranley
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Jasper More and


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Forrester, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Allen, Scholefield
Cronin, John
Freeson, Reginald


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Garrett, W. E.


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam
Gilbert, Dr. John


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Ginsburg, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Beaney, Alan
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bidwell, Sydney
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Delargy, H. J.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Albert
Dempsey, James
Harper, Joseph


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hattersley, Roy


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshine, W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Huckfield, Leslie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hunter, Adam


Cohen, stanley
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Janner, Grevilie


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)




Ford, Ben
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)







John, Brynmor
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Millan, Bruce
Sillars, James


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Molloy, William
Small, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Judd, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Kaufman, Gerald
Mulley, Rt. Hn, Frederick
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Kerr, Russell
Murray, Ronald King
Stonehrouse, Rt. Hn. John


Kinnock, Neil
Ogden, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lamond, James
O'Malley, Brian
Swain, Thomas


Latham, Arthur
Oram, Bert
Taverne, Dick


Lawson, George
Orme, Stanley
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Leonard, Dick
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tomney, Frank


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Loughlin, Charles
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tuck, Raphael



Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pentland, Norman
Varley, Eric G.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, Ernest G.
Wainwright, Edwin


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Wallace, George


McElhone, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, David


McGuire, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)
Weitzman, David


Mackenzie, Gregor
Probert, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Mackie, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Maclennan, Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Whitlock, William


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Rt. Hn, Frederick


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Wilson, Alexander(Hamilton)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Roper, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson william (coventry,S.)


Marquand, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



Mason, Rt Hn Roy




Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. William Hamling and


Mendelson, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Mr. John Golding.




Division No. 209.)
AYES
[2.4 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Burden, F. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter(Carshalton)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Astor, John
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Emery, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, Paul
Farr, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chapman, Sydney
Fell, Anthony


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Balniel, Lord
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fidler, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Churchill, W. S.
Finsherg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bell, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclitfe)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clegg, Walter
Fortescue, Tim


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cockeram, Eric
Fowler, Norman


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert
Fox, Marcus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Coombs, Derek
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Biffen, John
Cooper, A. E.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Biggs-Davison, John
Cordle, John
Gardner, Edward


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Gibson-Watt, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Body, Richard
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Crouch, David
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
Curran, Charles
Godber, lit. Hn. J. B.


Bowden, Andrew
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhart, Philip


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gorst, John


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack
Gower, Raymond


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gray, Hamish


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Green, Alan


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dixon, Piers
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grylls, Michael


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Drayson, G. B.
Gummer, Selwyn


Bryan, Paul
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Gurden, Harold







Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maddan, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maginnis, John E.
Scott, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marten, Neil
Sharples, Richard


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Angus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
Simeons, Charles


Havers, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Soref, Harold


Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Stainton, Keith


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Moate, Roger
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Molyneaux, James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Holland, Philip
Money, Ernie
Stokes, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hamby, Richard
More, Jasper
Sutcliffe, John


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mudd, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tebbit, Norman


Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


James, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Jessel, Toby
Nott, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Onslow, Cranley
Tinley, John


Jopling, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kilfedder, James
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
van Straubcnzee, W. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kinsey, J. R.
Percival, Ian
Waddington, David


Kirk, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kitson, Timothy
Pink, R. Banner
Walker-Smith, Rt.Hn. Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pounder, Rafton
Wall, Patrick


Knox, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Lambton, Antony
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Lane, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Warren, Kenneth


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Raison, Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lewis, Kennethh (Rutland))
Redmond, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Longden, Gilbert
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Loveridge, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


MacArthur, Ian
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McCrindle, R. A.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodnutt, Mark


McLaren, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wy1ie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Younger. Hn. George



Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNair-W ilson, Michael
Rost, Peter
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Royle, Anthony
Mr. Keith Speed.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Scholefield
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davidson, Arthur


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Armstrong, Ernest
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshiro, W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkinson, Norman
Carmichael, Neil
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Deakins, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Barnett, Joel
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Delargy, H. J.


Beaney, Alan
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dempsey, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Doig, Peter


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Dormand, J. D.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Conlan, Bernard
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Driberg, Tom


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cronin, John
Dunnett, Jack


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Edelman, Maurice







Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kinnock, Neil
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)


Ellis, Tom
Lamond, James
Probert, Arthur


English, Michael
Latham, Arthur
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Evans, Fred
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Leonard, Dick
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'cn&amp;R'dnor)


Foley, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Foot, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Roper, John


Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rose, Paul B.


Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Freeson, Reginald
McBride, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Garrett, W. E.
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gilbert, Dr. John
McGuire, Michael
Sillars, James


Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackie, John
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stallard, A. W.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Strang, Gavin


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Meachcr, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Swain, Thomas


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, John
Taverne, Dick


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Horam, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tinn, James


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William
Tomney, Frank


Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin


Hunter, Adam
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Janner, Greville
Murray, Ronald King
Wallace, George


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, David


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Weitzman, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Oram, Bert
White, James(Glasgow, Pollok)


John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Gwynore (Carmarthen)
Pendry, Tom



Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.
Mr. William Hamling and


Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Mr. John Golding.


Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John





Division No. 210]
AYES
[2.14 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biffen, John
Buck, Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Astor, John
Body, Richard
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Atkins, Humphrey
Boscawen, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Bossom, Sir Clive
Channon, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Balniel, Lord
Braine, Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Batsford, Brian
Bray, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewis, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Bell, Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, W.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cooke, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Coombs, Derek







Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cordle, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dixon, Piers
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Lambton, Antony
Royle, Anthony


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sharples, Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fidler, Michael
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McCrindle, R. A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McLaren, Martin
Soref, Harold


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Spence, John


Fowler, Norman
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stewart-Smith, D.G. (Belper)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maddan, Martin
Stokes, John


Gardner, Edward
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.
Sutcliffe, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S).


Green, Alan
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tilney, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Trew, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernie
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm
Waddington, David


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Haselhurst, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Wall, patrick


Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walters, Dennis


Havers, Michael
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Hayhoe, Barney
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hicks, Robert
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, William


Hiley, Joseph
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Osborn, John
Wilkinson, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Holt, Miss Mary
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hornby, Richard
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Worsley, Marucs


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hon. George


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pink, R. Bonner



Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Joel


Allen, Scholefield
Atkinson, Norman
Beaney, Alan


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnes, Michael
Bidwell, Sydney







Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Booth, Albert
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greville
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roper, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney,C.)
Lambie, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Leonard, Dick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, Fred
Mackle,John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Torney, Tom


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins David


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mikardo, Ian
Whitehead, Phillip


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
Mr. William Hamling and


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. John Golding.







Division No. 211.]
AYES
[2.25 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fox, Marcus
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mather, Carol


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus


Astor, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray


Atkins, Humphrey
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell,Lt.-Co1.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Molyneaux, James


Bennet Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernie


Benyon, W.
Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Mudd, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar


Body, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boscawen, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Braine, Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Bray, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brewis, John
Havers, Michael
Osborn, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hicks, Robert
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Bryan, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Burden, F. A.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Holt, Miss Mary
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Channon, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Hutchison, Milchael Clark
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Coombs, Derek
Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rost, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Anthony


Crouch, David
Kilfedder, James
Russell, Sir Ronald


Curran, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knigt, Mrs. Jill
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
Simeons, Charles


Dixon, Piers
Lambton, Antony
Sinclair, Sir George


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, C. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp;L' mington)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Dykes, Hugh
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stainton, Keith


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyno,N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Farr, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Stokes, John


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sutcliffe, John


Fidler, Michael
McMaster, Stanley
Tapsell, peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman



Maginnis, John E.








Temple, John M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wall, Patrick
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tilney, John
Walters, Dennis
Woodnutt, Mark


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Trew, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tugendhat, Christopher
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hn. George


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
White, Roger (Gravesend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vickers, Dame Joan
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Jasper More and


Waddington, David
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Walter Glegg.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Allen, Scholefield
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth


Barnes, Michael
Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David


Barnett, Joel
Golding, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Beaney, Alan
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Molloy, William


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Horam, John
Murray, Ronald King


Cant, R. B.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Bert


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'namp;St.P'cras,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest G.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, H. J.
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hn. william (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunn, James A.
Leonard, Dick
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Ellis, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spearing, Nigel


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin



Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley







Swain, Thomas
Varley, Eric G.
Whitlock William


Taverne, Dick
Wainwright, Edwin
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wallace, George
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Tinn, James
Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tomney, Frank
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Torney, Tom
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Urwin, T. W.
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Donald Coleman.




Division No. 212.]
AYES
[2.36 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey
Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy


Awdry, Daniel
Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knox, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fidler, Michael
Lambton, Antony


Balniel, Lord
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lane, David


Batsford, Brian
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bell, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Le Merchant, Spencer


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Fowler, Norman
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Benyon, W.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Longden, Gilbert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Loveridge, John


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McMaster, Stanley


Boscawen, Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Braine, Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David


Bray, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
Maginnis, John E.


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, Selwyn
Maude, Angus


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Buck, Antony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Michell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Channon, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernie


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clegg, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mudd, David


Cooke, Robert
Hiet, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar


Coombs, Derek
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cooper, A. E.
Holt, Miss Mary
Neave, Airey


Cordle, John
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom


Costain, A. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John


Critchley, Julian
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Curran, Charles
Hunt, John
Osborn, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack
James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dean, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Dixon, Piers
Jopling, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pounder, Rafton


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch







Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Soref, Harold
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Raison, Timothy
Speed, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Spence, John
Waddington, David


Redmond, Robert
Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wall, Patrick


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walters, Dennis


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stokes, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Ridsdale, Julian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff,N.)
Sutcliffe, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wiggin, Jerry


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wilkinson, John


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tebbit, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Temple, John M.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Scott, Nicholas
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, John
Younger, Hon. George


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Simeons, Charles
Trew, Peter
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Sinclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Victor Goodhew.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Allen, Scholefield
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Barnes, Michael
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Barnett, Joel
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Beaney, Alan
Evans, Fred
Judd, Frank


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kaufman, Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Russell


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kinnock, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lambie, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foley, Maurice
Lamond, James


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Buchan, Norman
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, W. E.
Lipton, Marcus


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lomas, Kenneth


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McBride, Neil


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Gregor


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackie, John


Conlan, Bernard
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cronin, John
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfieid,E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hilton, W. S.
Marks, Kenneth


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
Marquand, David


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Dempsey, James
Janner, Greville
Molloy, William


Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dormand, J. D.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)







Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Coronwy(Caernarvon)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Murray, Ronald King
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tinn, James


Ogden, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tomney, Frank


O'Halloran, Michael
Roper, John
Torney, Tom


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Urwin, T. W.


Oram, Bert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Varley, Eric G.


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wallace, George


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
Watkins, David


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silverman, Julius
Weitzman, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Mr. Donald Coleman.




Division No. 213.]
AYES
[2.47 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cormack, Patrick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Critchley, Julian
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Astor, John
Curran, Charles
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hastings, Stephen


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Havers, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dean, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Balniel, Lord
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Heseltine, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hicks, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dixon, Piers
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hiley, Joseph


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Draysorn, G. B.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh
Holland, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holt, Miss Mary


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornby, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Blakey, Peter
Emery, Peter
Howe, Hon. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, David (Guildford)


Body, Richard
Farn, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk,N.)


Boscawen, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Hunt, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bowden, Andrew
Fidler, Michael
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
James, David


Braine, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bray, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jessel, Toby


Brewis, John
Fortescue, Tim
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fowler, Norman
Jopling, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kershaw, Anthony


Bryan, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Kilfedder, James


Buck, Antony
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kirk, Peter


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kitson, Timothy


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Channon, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Knox, David


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John
Lambton, Antony


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gower, Raymond
Lane, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Churchill, W. S.
Gray, Hamish
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Green, Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clegg, Walter
Grylls, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Cockeram, Eric
Gummer, Selwyn
Longden, Gilbert


Cooke, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Loveridge, John


Coombs, Derek
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
MacArthur, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McCrindle, R. A.


Cordle, John

McLaren, Martin







Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Sutcliffe, John


McMaster, Staniey
Percival, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maddan, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Madel, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


Maginnis, John E.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Temple, John M.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Marten, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mather, Carol
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maude, Angus
Redmond, Robert
Tilney, John


Mawby, Ray
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Trew, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mills, Stratton (Beifast, N.)
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdenshire,W.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Waddington, David


Moate, Roger
Rost, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Molyneaux, James
Royle, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Money, Ernie
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wall, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walters, Dennis


More, Jasper
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Warren, Kenneth


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sharples, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mudd, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Murton, Oscar
Simeon, Charles
Wiggin, Jerry


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilkinson, John


Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Normanton, Tom
Soref, Harold
Woodnutt, Mark


Nott, John
Speed, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Onslow, Cranley
Spence, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stainton, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Osborn, John
Stanbrook, Ivor



Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stokes, John
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Paisley, Mr. Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, Arthur
Ginsburg, David


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Golding, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, John D. (ISlington, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Atkinson, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnes, Michael
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamling, William


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hattersley, Roy


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brown, Bob ((N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W,)
Dunn, James A.
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Huckfield, Leslie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hunter, Adam


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Janner, Greville


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Foley, Maurice
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
John, Brynmor


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Freeson, Reginald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Cronin, John
Galpern, Sir Myer
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Garnett, W. E.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dalyell, Tam

Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)







Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Molloy, William
Sillars, James


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Judd, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Kerr, Russell
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kinnock, Neil
Moyle, Roland
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Lamond, James
Murray, Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Latham, Arthur
Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lawson, George
O'Halloran, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Malley, Brian
Strang, Gavin


Leonard, Dick
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Swain, Thomas


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oswald, Thomas
Taverne, Dick


Lipton, Marcus
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardif,W.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Loughlin, Charles
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tomney, Frank


McBride, Neil
Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Pentland, Norman
Urwin, T. W.


McElhone, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.
Varley, Eric G.


McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackenzie, Gregor
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackie, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wallace, George


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wellbeleved, James


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Whitehead, Phillip


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfie1d,E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marquand, David
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)





Division No. 214.]
AYES
[2.58 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fidler, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chapman, Sydney
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Astor, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fowler, Norman


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clark William (Surrey, E.)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Balniel, Lord
Cockeram, Eric
Gardner, Edward


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coombs, Derek
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bell, Ronald
Cooper, A. E.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cordle, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Benyon, W.
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Curran, Charles
Gower, Raymond


Blaker, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gray, Hamish


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Green, Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bowden, Andrew
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grylls, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gummer, Selwyn


Braine, Bernard
Dixon, Piers
Gurden, Harold


Bray, Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Brewis, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bryan, Paul
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Bullus, Sir Eric
Eyre, Reginald
Havers, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Hawkins, Paul


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fell, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney







Heseltine, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hicks, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Simeone, Charles


Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberd'nshire,W.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Holland, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Soref, Harold


Holt, Miss Mary
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Hornby, Richard
Molyneaux, James
Spence, John


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Money, Ern[...]e
Stainton, Keith


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, David (Guildford)
More, Jasper
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Be[...]per)


Howell, Raph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hunt, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stokes, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Iremonger, T. L.
Mudd, David
Sutcliffe, John


James, David
Murton, Oscar
Tapsell, Peter


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Airey
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jopling, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Tebbit, Norman


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Temple, John M.


Kershaw, Anthony
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kilfedder, James
Osborn, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tilney, John


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kirk, Peter
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Trew, Peter


Kitson, Timothy
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Knox, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lambton, Antony
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Lane, David
Pounder, Rafton
Vickers, Dame Joan


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Waddington, David


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wall, Patrick


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Raison, Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Ward, Dame Irene


Loveridge, John
Redmond, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


MacArthur, Ian
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Weatherill, Bernard


McCrindle, R. A.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLaren, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McMaster, Stanley
Ridsdale, Julian
wiggin, Jerry


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Maddan, Martin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Madel, David
Rost, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Maginnis, John E.
Royle, Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Marples Rt. Hn. Ernest
Russell, Sir Ronald
Younger, Hon. George


Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Mather, Carol
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Mawby, Ray
Sharples, Richard
Mr. Walters.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Allen, Scholefield
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Doig, Peter


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dormand, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire,E.)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Brihtol, S.)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cohen, Stanley
Dunn, James A.


Barnes, Michael
Concannon, J. D.
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Joel
Conlan, Bernard
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Edelman, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bishop, E. S.
Cronin, John
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ellis, Tom


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
English, Michael


Booth, Albert
Dalyell, Tam
Evans, Fred


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Foley, Maurice


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric
Foot, Michael


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Ford, Ben


Campbell, I.(Dunbartonshire, W.)
Delargy, H. J.
Forrester, John


Cant, R. B.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Fraser, John (Norwood)







Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur


Garrett, W. E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Loughlin, Charles
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Ginsburg, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McBride, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McElhone, Frank
Roper, John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael
Rose, Paul B.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hamling, William
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackintosh, John P.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sillars, James


Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Silverman, Julius


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Small, William


Hilton, W. S.
Marquand, David
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Janner, Greville
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tomney, Frank


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Torney, Tom


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Varley, Eric G.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wallace, George


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oram, Bert
Weitzman, David


Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Orme, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oswald, Thomas
Whitehead, Philip


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pallok)


Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kerr, Russell
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kinnock, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lamb[...]e, David
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lamond, James
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Latham, Arthur
Perry, Ernest G.



Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leadbitter, Ted
Prescott, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Leonard, Dick
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)